Branche Builders, Inc. v. Coggins

• Decision Date: 13 October 2009
• Docket Number: No. 4624.,4624.
• Citation: 686 S.E.2d 200
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: BRANCHE BUILDERS, INC., a South Carolina Corporation, Respondent, v. Saundra COGGINS, d/b/a "Carolina Carpet World & Interiors," and Coggins & Kimbrell Enterprises, Inc., a South Carolina Corporation, Appellants.

686 S.E.2d 200

BRANCHE BUILDERS, INC., a South Carolina Corporation, Respondent, v. Saundra COGGINS, d/b/a "Carolina Carpet World & Interiors," and Coggins & Kimbrell Enterprises, Inc., a South Carolina Corporation, Appellants.

No. 4624.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Submitted May 1, 2009.

Decided October 13, 2009.

Gloria Y. Leevy, of Greenville, for appellants.

John Martin Foster, of Rock Hill, for respondent.

KONDUROS, J.

Branche Builders, Inc., a general contractor, brought suit against Saundra Coggins, a flooring subcontractor, doing business as Carolina Carpet World & Interiors, and Coggins & Kimbrell Enterprises, Inc. (collectively Carolina Carpet World)¹ for breach of contract after the flooring Coggins installed started to buckle from moisture. The trial court found in favor of Branche Builders and Carolina Carpet World appealed. We affirm.²

FACTS

Branche Builders was hired as the general contractor to remodel a home in Rock Hill. On April 30, 2003, Branche Builders hired Coggins to install laminate flooring in the home in exchange for $10,759.46. Coggins installed the floor in May 2003. The floors were manufactured by Witex and the instructions required polyethylene to be placed between a cement floor and a laminate floor. However, because the home had vinyl floors,³ Coggins placed roofing felt between the vinyl and laminate floors during installation. Branche Builders paid Coggins according to the contract and shortly thereafter, the laminate flooring buckled and lifted off the subfloor. Coggins removed the laminate floor but did not replace it. Ultimately, Branche Builders hired Kellet's Floors and Interiors to replace the floor.

Branche Builders filed a complaint against Carolina Carpet World, which included allegations of rescission of contract and breach of warranty. The case was tried without a jury. At trial, Coggins conceded she did not follow the manufacturer's instructions in that she used roofing felt instead of the manufacturer-recommended moisture barrier. She also was uncertain as to whether the floor was installed with the proper expansion specifications. However, Coggins and one of Carolina Carpet World's experts contended the moisture entered the home through a door or because of an inadequate drainage system during periods of heavy rain.

Howard Kellet, president of the company that installed the replacement laminate floors in the home, testified as an expert witness in the area of laying laminate flooring. He testified he had never seen roofing felt used as an underlayment. He further testified he would never have used it because it was not an approved vapor barrier for a laminate floor. Additionally, he stated there appeared "to be little or no expansion joints." When asked if he had "an opinion as to what caused the buckling in the floor" he responded "it was like a fifty-foot room and then there was no expansion joint put to allow for that. It's kind of like concrete expansions. I mean, this floor will move. It will expand and contract with humidity."

Another expert in the area of laminate floors, Richard Talbert, was asked if he had "an opinion as to whether that lack of use [of the recommended vapor barrier] and that lack of spacing was the probable cause of the problems that appeared in this case?" He responded, "Yes, sir, particularly around the fireplace where there's buck[l]ing and some darkening of the color. That means that the concrete floor itself was allowing moisture to come up from the bottom and get on the bottom of the product."

The trial court asked Michael Schwartz, an expert in the area of home examination, if the moisture was entering the house from the door. Schwartz testified it was not. The trial court further questioned, "What if you'd had a proper vapor barrier down there over the concrete if it leached into the concrete? Would that have made a difference as to what happened to the laminate?" Schwartz responded affirmatively.

Carolina Carpet World presented Gary Drury, a witness qualified as an expert in the installation of flooring, who testified "as far as the moisture of that magnitude, ... it's just really hard to believe it solely came through the bottom of that concrete." He also testified the laminate flooring was protected through means other than polyethylene. James Kendrick, who installed the laminate flooring on Carolina Carpet World's behalf, also testified as an expert witness. He testified that the roof felting was "just as good as" the polyethylene.

The trial court found in favor of Branche Builders on the basis of rescission. The trial court found "the most probable cause of the damage to the installed flooring was the failure to follow the manufacturer's specifications regarding the proper moisture barrier on a concrete slab and the proper room for expansion of the flooring." The trial court awarded Branche Builders damages of $10,759.46, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and attorney's fees. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"An action for breach of contract seeking money damages is an action at law." McCall v. IKON, 380 S.C. 649, 658, 670 S.E.2d 695, 700 (Ct.App.2008). On appeal of an action at law tried without a jury, we will not disturb the trial court's findings of fact unless no evidence reasonably supports the findings. Townes Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 86, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976). Additionally, the appellate court can correct errors of law. Okatie River, L.L.C. v. Se. Site Prep, L.L.C. 353 S.C. 327, 334, 577 S.E.2d 468, 472 (Ct.App.2003). The trial court's findings are equivalent to a jury's findings in a law action. Chapman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 263 S.C. 565, 567, 211 S.E.2d 876, 877 (1975). Questions regarding credibility and the weight of the evidence are exclusively for the trial court. Sheek v. Crimestoppers Alarm Sys., 297 S.C. 375, 377, 377 S.E.2d 132, 133 (Ct.App.1989). "We must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the respondents and eliminate from consideration all evidence to the contrary." Id.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Carolina Carpet World argues the trial court erred in...