Hermann v. Varco-Pruden Bldgs.
Decision Date | 29 August 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 20334,VARCO-PRUDEN,20334 |
Citation | 796 P.2d 590,106 Nev. 564 |
Parties | E. Ted HERMANN and Jane D. Hermann, a 1978 Living Trust, Appellant, v.BUILDINGS, Respondent. |
Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
This case involves a dispute concerning respondent's installation of a metal roof on appellant's warehouse. The principal issues in this appeal are whether the district court erred by finding that defects in the warehouse's eaves were not functionally substantial, whether the district court erred by not reducing the amount of respondent's mechanic's lien to reflect the costs needed to repair the eaves, and whether the district court wrongly awarded compensation to respondent for uninstalled materials ruined in a flood of the construction site. We find the district court erred on all three of these issues.
Appellant, E. Ted Hermann and Jane D. Hermann, a 1978 Living Trust (Hermann), owns a large metal warehouse in Sparks, Nevada. Hermann and respondent, Varco-Pruden Buildings, a unit of AMCA International Corporation (AMCA), executed a subcontract to install the warehouse's roof for $969,845.00. The roof is quite large, approximately 250,000 square feet. It consists of thousands of individual metal panels. During installation of the roof, there were problems with misalignment of the panels. The misalignment and its effects resulted in this dispute between the parties. In addition, on or about February 17, 1986, torrential rains flooded the work site and damaged approximately $33,969.00 of uninstalled insulation and other materials belonging to Varco-Pruden.
Subsequently, a dispute arose as to the proper amount of Varco-Pruden's compensation. When Varco-Pruden was not paid the full contract price plus the sum for the insulation and other materials, it filed a mechanic's lien against the warehouse for the balance. Varco-Pruden later filed suit, seeking enforcement of the lien, damages, interest, and attorney's fees. Hermann subsequently filed a counterclaim against Varco-Pruden, asserting the roof was improperly constructed and that it suffered damages caused by Varco-Pruden's failure to timely complete the job.
At the conclusion of trial, the district court, in essence, found that Varco-Pruden substantially performed the roofing job. After subtracting delay and miscellaneous defective work damages from the lien amount, the district court awarded Varco-Pruden $127,180.89 plus interest and attorney's fees. The cost for the insulation and other materials is included in this figure. Hermann agrees that Varco-Pruden substantially performed the roofing job.
On appeal, Hermann argues that the district court erred in finding that the defects in the eaves are not functionally substantial.
This argument has merit. Findings of fact of the district court will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Trident Construction Corp. v. West Electric, Inc., 105 Nev. 423, ----, 776 P.2d 1239, 1241 (1989). Here, there is no support in the record for the district court's finding. The district court had earlier found that all experts from both parties, and a vice-president for construction services from AMCA (Chris Boerup), admitted there were some eave defects. In addition, after confessing that the eaves needed to be repaired, Boerup testified that Varco-Pruden was willing to remedy the problem with the eaves. Finally, the district court openly acknowledged that it was most convinced by Varco-Pruden's own expert, Dr. Fisher. Dr. Fisher testified that the eaves needed to be fixed; if the problem was not corrected, there was a possibility that the portion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
SOC, Inc. v. Mirage Casino-Hotel
... ... 5. Id ... 6. Hermann" Trust v. Varco-Pruden Buildings, 106 Nev. 564, 566, 796 P.2d 590, 591-92 (1990) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
State, Dept. of Human Resources, Div. of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation v. Jimenez
... ... Hermann Trust v. Varco-Pruden Buildings, 106 Nev. 564, 566, 796 P.2d 590, 592 (1990) ... ...
-
Lisle v. State
...A district court's determinations of fact will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. Hermann Trust v. Varco-Pruden Buildings, 106 Nev. 564, 566, 796 P.2d 590, 592 (1990). In Johnston v. State, 107 Nev. 944, 822 P.2d 1118 (1991), the defendant had sought a writ of habeas corpus......
-
Frantz v. Johnson
... ... See Hermann Trust v. Varco-Pruden Buildings, 106 Nev. 564, 566, 796 P.2d 590, 591-92 (1990) ; see also ... ...