Nelson v. Vernco Constr., Inc.
Decision Date | 31 May 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 08-10-00222-CV,08-10-00222-CV |
Citation | 566 S.W.3d 716 |
Parties | David NELSON, Individually and d/b/a Collective Contracting, a Sole Proprietorship; Collective Contracting, Inc.; and E.E. Hood & Sons, Inc., Appellants, v. VERNCO CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
In this contract dispute arising out of a highway construction project, subcontractor Vernco Construction obtained a multimillion-dollar verdict against its former Corporate Vice President David Nelson and against prime contractor E.E. Hood & Sons, Inc. (Hood) after Hood fired Vernco and hired Nelson’s own private construction company, Collective Contracting, Inc., to finish certain subcontracted sewer work.
Although the procedural issues at play are complex, Vernco—alleging causes of action for breach of contract, tortious interference with a contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud/conspiracy to defraud—essentially accuses Hood and Nelson of conspiring to sabotage Vernco’s subcontract so that Nelson’s personal company could then step in, perform work, and receive money that should have gone to Vernco. Hood and Nelson contend there was no conspiracy; rather, Vernco’s financial troubles and alleged misappropriation of funds ultimately led to a lapse in insurance coverage at the construction site, which gave Hood good cause to terminate Vernco’s subcontract and hire Nelson’s company to finish the job. Hood also insists it has already paid Vernco all monies legally owed per the terms of the Vernco Subcontract. Following trial, the jury sided with Vernco on all causes of action.
Hood and Nelson seek reversal of the judgment on multiple grounds. We reverse and render in part on the issue of attorney’s fees, reform the remainder of the judgment to reflect liability on breach of fiduciary duty grounds rather than breach of contract grounds, affirm the judgment as modified as to all issues except lost profit damages, and suggest a remittitur on lost profit damages.1
In February 2004, after soliciting bids for a large construction project aimed at bolstering road and utilities infrastructure around the site of a proposed Toyota plant south of San Antonio, Texas (the Applewhite Project), the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) ultimately awarded a prime contract to E.E. Hood & Sons, Inc. (Hood). Hood, in turn, hired Vernco Construction, Inc., as its subcontractor for water utility services. Hood had previously hired Vernco as a subcontractor on a different project (the Pat Booker Project). Jack Claflin was the owner/president of Vernco. Corporate Vice President David Nelson headed Vernco’s water utility services division and was largely the point person between Vernco and Hood for both the Pat Booker Project and the Applewhite Project. While this case primarily involves a dispute over the Vernco’s work on the Applewhite Project, as a side issue, Vernco alleges that Nelson told the company that as a result of delays on the Pat Booker Project, Vernco would be entitled to between $150,000 and $170,000 in inefficiency claims from TxDOT. According to Claflin, Nelson represented that he would file those claims on Vernco’s behalf. It is undisputed that Nelson did not timely file the Pat Booker project inefficiency claims.
The Applewhite Project’s Prime Contract between TxDOT and Hood incorporated by reference the provisions of TxDOT’s 1993 Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges (also known as the "Blue Book"). Germane excerpts of the Blue Book and subsequent change orders modifying the Prime Contract will be discussed later in this opinion.
Prime contractor Hood, in turn, signed a subcontract for utilities services with Vernco (the Vernco Subcontract). Relevant to this appeal are five sections of the Vernco Subcontract.
Section 3(e) of the Vernco Subcontract details the payment arrangement between the parties and places restrictions on what Vernco may do with the money it receives from Hood:
Section 4 of the Vernco Subcontract deals with how changes and adjustments in the scope of work and the amount of money owned to Vernco will be handled:
Section 4. CHANGES. The Contractor may at any time by written order of Contractor’s authorized representative, and without notice to the Subcontractor’s sureties, make changes in, additions to and deletions from the work to be performed and materials to be furnished under this Subcontract, and the Subcontractor shall promptly proceed with the performance of this Subcontract as so changed. Any increase or decrease in the Subcontract price resulting from changes shall be agreed upon in writing by the parties hereto. Any claim for adjustment of the subcontract price under this Section must be made in writing within ten days from the date such changes are ordered. The Subcontract price shall be equitably adjusted on account of any such changes, subject to any applicable provisions of the contract between the Contractor and the Owner....
Section 5 of the Vernco Contract addresses Vernco’s prosecution of work:
Section 10 of the Vernco Subcontract outlines insurance requirements for the Applewhite Project:
Finally, Section 31 deals with what happens in the event of a breach:
Section 31. BREACH OF TERM OR CONDITION. Upon Subcontractor’s breach of any term or condition of this Subcontract, except those which specifically provide a period within which a particular breach may be cured, the Contractor, in his sole discretion, may...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cox Paving of Tex., Inc. v. H.O. Salinas & Sons Paving, Inc.
...bound to interpret the terms of the contract as written and not how the parties would like them to have been written. Nelson v. Vernco Constr., Inc. , 566 S.W.3d 716, 750 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2018, judgm't set aside, op. not vacated). The question of whether an express contract covers the ser......
-
Zimmerman Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pastran, 08-17-00131-CV
...did not, in fact, enter judgment against Frymire. Judgments contain two types of clauses: recital and decretal. Nelson v. Vernco Constr., Inc. , 566 S.W.3d 716, 739 n.8 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2018, judgment set aside, opinion not vacated, pet. filed) (citing Alcantar v. Okla. Nat'l Bank , 47 S.W......