Baker-Smith Sheet Metal v. Building Erection Serv. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 June 2001 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. S.D. 2001) Baker-Smith Sheet Metal, Inc., Respondent, v. Building Erection Services Company, Appellant. WD58946 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. C. William Kramer
Counsel for Appellant: Anthony J. Romano and Mishca L. Waliczek
Counsel for Respondent: David R. Mitchell and Jeffrey R. Clark
Opinion Summary: Building Erection Services Company, Inc. (BESCO) appeals judgment in favor of Baker-Smith Sheet Metal, Inc. (Baker-Smith).
REVERSED.
Division I holds: The trial court erred in denying BESCO's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because BESCO was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, in that Baker-Smith executed a clear and unambiguous general release waiving and releasing BESCO from the claims at issue in this case.
Building Erection Services Company, Inc. ("BESCO") appeals from a judgment in favor of Baker-Smith Sheet Metal, Inc. ("Baker-Smith") and against BESCO. BESCO contends the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for new trial, because 1) it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, in that Baker-Smith executed a general release waiving and releasing BESCO from the claims at issue in this case; 2) Baker-Smith failed to make a submissible case on its claim for quantum meruit, in that Baker-Smith performed no work outside the scope of the parties' contract, and its recovery is limited to the contract price, for which BESCO paid Baker-Smith in full; and 3) Baker-Smith failed to make a submissible case on its claim on account, in that Baker-Smith sought to recover damages for insulated metal panels that were pre-existing consideration for the parties' contract, for which BESCO paid Baker-Smith in full.
We reverse.Facts
BESCO is a corporation engaged in the installation and erection of construction materials, including steel and precast concrete, on construction projects. Baker-Smith, a corporation, furnished BESCO certain construction materials to be installed on a construction project, specifically, the FAA Control Tower at Kansas City International Airport ("the project").
On or about January 24, 1995, Baker-Smith and BESCO entered into a contract pursuant to which Baker-Smith agreed to furnish BESCO with insulated metal panels according to the plans and specifications for the construction of the project. BESCO agreed to pay Baker-Smith $67,159 for the insulated metal panels. The insulated metal panels were to be installed by BESCO at the top of the FAA Tower.
Baker-Smith created shop drawings for the project. On June 10, 1995, John Scheerer, a BESCO employee, approved the shop drawings provided by Baker-Smith as correct for the project and correct in dimensions.
In June 1995, Baker-Smith furnished BESCO the insulated metal panels according to the shop drawings. The panels, however, were too short. On July 17, 1995, Baker-Smith quoted a price of $10,555 for a second set of insulated metal panels that were the needed length. On July 24, 1995, BESCO ordered from Baker-Smith the second set of insulated metal panels. The second set of insulated metal panels was delivered to the project on or before August 15, 1995.
BESCO paid Baker-Smith the full contract price of $67,159 for conforming insulated metal panels. On October 19, 1995, Baker-Smith's then vice-president, Gerald S. Schaefer, executed a written waiver and release. The waiver and release acknowledged that Baker-Smith had been paid in full by BESCO for all work, services, labor, equipment and materials furnished in connection with the construction of the project through the date of September 20, 1995. The waiver and release further waived and released any and all rights, demands, and claims for materials that Baker-Smith furnished to the project on or before September 20, 1995.
On April 30, 1999, Baker-Smith filed suit against BESCO in the Associate Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, for quantum meruit and on account, seeking damages for the conforming insulated metal panels Baker-Smith furnished to BESCO on or before August 15, 1995. Upon BESCO's demand for jury trial, the lawsuit was transferred to the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.
Prior to trial, BESCO filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that BESCO was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the undisputed facts showed that Baker-Smith executed a waiver and release that waived its claims against BESCO that are at issue in the lawsuit. At the close of Baker-Smith's evidence, BESCO filed a motion for directed verdict based on its previously filed motion for summary judgment and also on the basis that Baker-Smith could not sustain its claims for quantum meruit and on account because the damages sought by Baker-Smith were part of the original consideration of the parties' contract, which BESCO paid Baker-Smith in full. At the close of all evidence, BESCO renewed its motion for directed verdict.
On March 16, 2000, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Baker-Smith, and on April 14, 2000, judgment was entered. The jury awarded Baker-Smith $10,555 plus nine percent interest from September 25, 1995, for the conforming insulated metal panels Baker-Smith furnished to BESCO on or before August 15, 1995.
On May 12, 2000, BESCO filed its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for new trial. In its motion, BESCO asserted that 1) Baker-Smith executed a general release that waived and released its claims against BESCO that are at issue in this case; 2) Baker-Smith failed to make a submissible case on its claims for quantum meruit and on account against BESCO; and 3) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a jury verdict in favor of Baker-Smith. The court denied BESCO's motion. This appeal follows.
In reviewing the trial court's denial of BESCO's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we must determine whether Baker-Smith made a submissible case. Massman Const. Co. v. Missouri Highways and Transp. Comm'n, 31 S.W.3d 109, 112 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000). "In doing so, we review the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict and disregard contrary evidence." Id. We will reverse the jury's verdict for insufficient evidence only where there is a complete absence of probative fact to support the jury's conclusion. Giddens v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 29 S.W.3d 813, 818 (Mo. banc 2000), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 121 S.Ct. 1644 (2001). A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should only be granted when there is no room for reasonable minds to differ as to the ultimate disposition of the case. Balke v. Central Missouri Elec. Coop., 966 S.W.2d 15, 20 (Mo.App. W.D. 1997).
BESCO's first point on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for new trial, because it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, in that Baker-Smith executed a general release waiving and releasing BESCO from the claims at issue in this case.
BESCO argues that Missouri law mandates that a plain and unambiguous general release disposes of the entire subject matter or causes of action involved. BESCO further argues that Baker-Smith executed a general release that waived and released all of its claims against BESCO for material it furnished to the project through September 20, 1995.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scheck Indus. Corp. v. Tarlton Corp.
...intent is determined based on the contract's language and parol evidence is not permitted. Baker–Smith Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Building Erection Serv. Co., 49 S.W.3d 712, 716 (Mo.App.W.D.2001).Discussion At the outset, we note that many of Plaintiff's points relied on fail to comply with the b......
-
AB Realty One, LLC v. Miken Techs., Inc.
...An ambiguity arises when there is uncertainty in the meaning of the words used in the contract. Baker–Smith Sheet Metal Inc. v. Building Erection Services Co., 49 S.W.3d 712 (Mo.App.W.D. 2001). The ambiguity must come from within the four corners of the contract; extrinsic evidence cannot b......
-
Walley v. La Plata Volunteer Fire Dep't
...policy of law that encourages freedom of contract and the peaceful settlement of disputes.’ ” Baker–Smith Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Bldg. Erection Servs. Co., 49 S.W.3d 712, 715 (Mo.App. W.D.2001) (quoting Blackstock v. Kohn, 994 S.W.2d 947, 954 (Mo. banc 1999)).City of Kansas City v. Southwest ......
-
Matt Miller Co. v. Taylor-Martin Holdings, LLC
...at 534. “Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law to be decided by the court.” Baker–Smith Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Building Erection Serv. Co., 49 S.W.3d 712, 716 (Mo.App. W.D.2001). A contract is ambiguous when a review of the entire contract would cause reasonable persons to diff......