Background
Rath Mor hired Tara Management as general contractor for a construction project, and Tara subcontracted stucco work to Craftsman Plastering and Lath. The subcontract required Craftsman to indemnify Tara and Rath Mor for claims arising from Craftsman’s acts or omissions. After Rath Mor sued Tara over construction defects, Tara brought third-party claims against Craftsman and thirteen other subcontractors.
Rath Mor, Tara, and the other subcontractors later reached a global settlement. Tara assigned its remaining claims against Craftsman to Rath Mor. At trial, Rath Mor sought $779,318.66 for Tara’s attorney’s fees and costs in defending Rath Mor’s original suit. Its witness acknowledged that some fees related to claims against other subcontractors and Tara’s counterclaim. The jury awarded $55,652.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District reversed the additur judgment and directed the trial court to enter judgment on the jury’s $55,652 verdict. The trial court improperly increased damages to $779,318.66 based on speculation that the jury had simply divided the requested amount among fourteen subcontractors.
The damages evidence was not undisputed: cross-examination showed that the amount sought included work related to claims against other subcontractors and a counterclaim, rather than solely claims arising from Craftsman’s stucco work. The instructions, verdict form, and Rath Mor’s closing argument permitted the jury to discount the requested damages. Rath Mor also had not presented joint-and-several liability to the jury.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court may not grant additur by speculating about how the jury calculated its award.
- Evidence that a claimed fee total includes work attributable to others can create a fact dispute over damages.
- A party that tells the jury it may discount damages cannot later insist the jury was required to award the full requested amount.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that additur is not a vehicle for a court to reweigh disputed damages evidence or replace the jury’s factual judgment. In indemnity disputes involving multiple subcontractors, a claimant seeking all defense costs must establish which costs fall within the particular indemnitor’s contractual obligation.