Modular Bldg. Consultants of W. Va., Inc. v. Poerio, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 May 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–0158.,14–0158.
• Citation: 774 S.E.2d 555,235 W.Va. 474
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: MODULAR BUILDING CONSULTANTS OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC. and Billy Joe McLaughlin, Defendants/Third–Party Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners v. POERIO, INC., Third–Party Defendant Below, Respondent.

235 W.Va. 474

774 S.E.2d 555

MODULAR BUILDING CONSULTANTS OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC. and Billy Joe McLaughlin, Defendants/Third–Party Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners

v.POERIO, INC., Third–Party Defendant Below, Respondent.

No. 14–0158.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted March 10, 2015.

Decided May 21, 2015.

Brent K. Kesner, Esq., Ernest G. Hentschel, II, Esq., Kesner & Kesner, PLLC, Charleston, WV, for Petitioners.

Benjamin T. Hughes, Esq., Linnsey M. Amores, Esq., Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe, PLLC, Charleston, WV, for Respondent.

Opinion

WORKMAN, Chief Justice:

This is an appeal from the circuit court's denial of petitioner Modular Building Consultants of West Virginia, Inc.'s (hereinafter “Modular”) motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial following an adverse jury verdict on Modular's claims for contribution and indemnification. Modular contends that 1) the jury's finding that respondent Poerio, Inc. (hereinafter “Poerio”) was negligent is inconsistent with its finding that Poerio did not breach the lease agreement; 2) the circuit court erred in ruling that Modular's contribution claim was extinguished by its good faith settlement with the injured plaintiff; and 3) the circuit court erred in allowing the injured plaintiff's comparative fault to be assessed by the jury.

Upon careful review of the briefs, the appendix record, the arguments of the parties, and the applicable legal authority, we conclude that the circuit court erred in finding that Modular's contribution claim was extinguished as a matter of law. However, we further find that the jury's verdict was neither inconsistent nor impermissibly considered the comparative fault of the injured plaintiff. We find, therefore, that judgment was properly entered in favor of Poerio and affirm the order of the circuit court.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 14, 2011, Jarrett Smith (hereinafter “Mr. Smith”) was injured when his vehicle collided with a truck owned by Modular, operated by Billy Joe McLaughlin (hereinafter “Mr. McLaughlin”). Just prior to the collision, Mr. McLaughlin had arrived at a jobsite at Geary Elementary School to retrieve a Modular storage container being leased and utilized by respondent Poerio, the general contractor on the project. Upon arrival at the jobsite, Mr. McLaughlin testified that the main entrance was blocked by stacks of bricks and vehicles, requiring him to utilize the construction entrance located closer to where the storage unit was sitting. Upon attempting to access the construction entrance, Mr. McLaughlin testified that he was unable to pull his truck fully into the jobsite because the clearance he required was partially obstructed by the storage container itself and a white work van. As a result, he stopped his truck while it was protruding into the main roadway and exited his vehicle to adjust the truck's axle, allowing him to make a tighter turn into the jobsite and clear the white work van and container. Upon Mr. McLaughlin's return to his vehicle to continue pulling into the jobsite, Mr. Smith collided with Mr. McLaughlin's truck sustaining serious injuries. At trial, Poerio offered witnesses to testify that the main entrance was in fact not obstructed by bricks or vehicles at the time of the accident.

The lease agreement between Modular and Poerio for the subject storage container contained indemnity language requiring Poerio to indemnify Modular from “any loss, cost or expenses and from any liability to any person on account of damage to person or property arising out of any failure of [Poerio] to comply in any respect with and perform any of the requirements and provisions of this Lease. ” (emphasis added). As pertains to this case, the lease required Poerio to “provide free and clear access for delivery and return of the Equipment by standard mobile transport vehicles.”

Mr. Smith filed suit against Modular, alleging negligence. Modular then brought a third-party complaint against Poerio, making claims for contribution and indemnification pursuant to the lease agreement. Specifically, Modular claimed that Poerio breached the provision of the lease agreement requiring it to provide “free and clear access” for return of the storage container.¹ Notably, Mr. Smith asserted no direct claims against Poerio at any time. Shortly before trial was to commence, Modular settled with Mr. Smith and obtained a release from him releasing both Modular and Poerio.² Trial as to Modular's third-party complaint proceeded and the jury was asked to determine 1) whether Poerio breached its lease agreement with Modular; and 2) whether Poerio, Modular, or Mr. Smith were negligent and in what percentages. The jury found that Poerio did not breach the lease agreement, but found that Poerio was twenty percent at fault for the accident. The jury also assigned twenty percent of fault to Modular and, critically, assigned sixty percent of fault to Mr. Smith. Upon entry of the judgment order, the circuit court entered judgment in Poerio's favor on its contribution claim on the basis of the apportionment of fault and as a matter of law based upon Jennings v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 224 W.Va. 636, 687 S.E.2d 574 (2009), which the circuit court read to extinguish the contribution claim upon Modular's settlement with Mr. Smith.³

Modular filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively, a new trial. First, Modular argued that the jury's finding that Poerio did not breach the lease agreement was inconsistent with its finding that Poerio was negligent. Modular contended that the only possible way Poerio could have been negligent for the subject accident was by failing to provide free and clear access to the storage unit and that failing to provide free and clear access was a violation of the lease agreement. Without specifically reconciling the two jury findings, the circuit court concluded that it was exclusively the jury's province to weigh the evidence and could make both findings. Secondly, Modular argued that its contribution claim was not extinguished by settling with Mr. Smith because unlike the settling party in Jennings, it had obtained a release for both its and Poerio's liability as part of the settlement, thereby preserving its contribution claim. The circuit court, recognizing this as an issue of first impression, nevertheless found Jennings analogous and concluded that the contribution claim was extinguished as a matter of law due to the good faith settlement reached with Mr. Smith. Finally, Modular argued that it was improper for the circuit court to include Mr. Smith on the verdict form for purposes of apportionment of fault since he was not a party to the litigation, as required under West Virginia Code § 55–7–24. The circuit court concluded that because Mr. Smith testified, the jury had the necessary evidence to apportion fault to him and that, even if erroneous, it was harmless error. As a result of the foregoing, the circuit court denied Modular's motion and this appeal followed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This case presents itself upon the circuit court's denial of Modular's motion for judgment as a matter of law, or, in the alternative for a new trial. With respect to Modular's motion for judgment as a matter of law, this Court has held:

The appellate standard of review for an order granting or denying a renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law after trial pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [1998] is de novo.

When this Court reviews a trial court's order granting or denying a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law after trial under Rule 50(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [1998], it is not the task of this Court to review the facts to determine how it would have ruled on the evidence presented. Instead, its task is to determine whether the evidence was such that a reasonable trier of fact might have reached the decision below. Thus, when considering a ruling on a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law after trial, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Syl Pts. 1 and 2, Fredeking v. Tyler, 224 W.Va. 1, 680 S.E.2d 16 (2009). As pertains to this Court's review of the sufficiency of the evidence,

the court should: (1) consider the evidence most favorable to the prevailing party; (2) assume that all conflicts in the evidence were resolved by the jury in favor of the prevailing party; (3) assume as proved all facts which the prevailing party's evidence tends to prove; and (4) give to the prevailing party the benefit of all favorable inferences which reasonably may be drawn from the facts proved.

Syl. Pt. 5, Orr v. Crowder, 173 W.Va. 335, 315 S.E.2d 593 (1983).

Insofar as Modular's motion for a new trial is concerned, this Court reviews “the rulings of the circuit court concerning a new trial and its conclusion as to the existence of reversible error under an abuse of discretion standard, and we review the circuit court's underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. Questions of law are subject to a de novo review.” Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc., 194 W.Va. 97, 104, 459 S.E.2d 374, 381 (1995). “Although the ruling of a trial court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial is entitled to great respect and weight, the trial court's ruling will be reversed on appeal when it is clear that the trial court has acted under some misapprehension of the law or the evidence.” Syl. Pt. 4, Sanders v. Georgia–Pacific Corp., 159 W.Va. 621, 225 S.E.2d 218 (1976). With these standards in mind, we proceed to Modular's assignments of error.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Inconsistency of Verdict

Modular's first assignment of error asserts that the jury's finding that Poerio was negligent, but did not breach the lease agreement is inconsistent. Modular argues that the only evidence of negligence against Poerio adduced at trial was that it failed to provide free and clear...