Peach State Roofing, Inc. v. 2224 South Trail Corp.
| Decision Date | 06 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D07-278.,No. 2D07-1077.,2D07-278.,2D07-1077. |
| Citation | 3 So.3d 442 |
| Parties | PEACH STATE ROOFING, INC., a Georgia corporation, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. 2224 SOUTH TRAIL CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Peach State Roofing, Inc. (Peach State), appeals a final judgment awarding damages to 2224 Trail Corp. (Trail) on its claim for breach of contract. We hold that the trial court improperly found an implied term in a contract which by its terms was clear and unambiguous and that there was a failure to prove damages as of the date of the breach. We therefore reverse the final judgment in its entirety and remand to the trial court for entry of judgment in favor of Peach State.
Peach State contracted on August 2, 2001, with Trail to put a new roof on Trail's forty-year-old, 26,500-square-foot commercial building. The contract required Peach State to (1) "remove and discard existing roof system," and (2) "furnish and install Carlisle Single Ply membrane roof system," for a fixed price of $63,500. The parties agreed that the contract provided that the contractor would be compensated for any required repairs to the metal decking that supports the roof system at $3.50 per square foot. Trail does not contend that this provision required replacing the metal deck. The work was completed about December 20, 2001, with no charges having been made for metal deck repair.
On September 2, 2004, Trail filed suit against Peach State alleging that Peach State had breached the contract "by failing to properly remove and replace the roof" and that Trail "has suffered and will suffer damages including, but not limited to, repair costs, loss of rental income and costs incurred as a result of the water damage experienced from the improper roof repair/replacement."
Trail's expert witness, Mr. Albritton, described the roof as, "basically, an elastomeric sheet that is installed over top of roof insulation boards that are sitting on top of a lightweight insulated concrete that is poured in place over a metal roof deck." He inspected portions of the roof in April and May of 2006, almost five years after the work had been completed. He observed an amount of corrosion in the metal decking. He also stated that in his opinion it was industry practice for the roofing contractor to notify the owner of the existence of corrosion. Mr. Albritton admitted he had no way to know the condition of the decking at the end of 2001, when Peach Tree completed its contract.
Trail offered no evidence of the condition of the metal deck or the roof as it was in 2001. Moreover, Trail offered no evidence of "repair costs, loss of rental income and costs incurred as a result of water damage," as it alleged in the complaint as damages.
The trial court specifically held that the contract did not require Peach State to remove and replace the existing metal decking but found that the "decking underlying the roofing system ... was in a seriously deteriorated condition at the time" Peach State performed the contract. The trial court also found that there was an implied term in the contract based on custom and usage which required Peach State to "notify the owner if the deck underlying the roof system is in a deteriorated condition" and held that Peach State had breached the contract by failing to notify Trail that the metal decking was deteriorated, thus enabling Trail to decide whether to replace it. The trial court further found that both the roof system and the metal decking would have to be replaced and that the current cost to accomplish such task would be $364,000. It then awarded Trail $364,000 in damages against Peach State. It is noteworthy that the trial court did not find, nor did Trail argue on appeal, that Peach State had installed the Carlisle roof system improperly. Further, the trial court did not find that the deteriorated metal decking was the cause of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Forbes/Cohen Fla. Props., L.P.
...the parties' agreements to add to the agreement, such as in this case, a prohibition on signage. See Peach State Roofing, Inc. v. 2224 S. Trail Corp. , 3 So.3d 442, 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). To do so would effectively eviscerate Sears's right to sublease and render its express contractual rig......
-
Taylor Indus. Constr., Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co.
...defective work was improperly included in the Claim of Lien and whether the Lien is fraudulent. 7. See Peach State Roofing, Inc. v. 2224 S. Trail Corp., 3 So.3d 442, 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009 (reversing trial court for considering a party's testimony to supply an implied term about custom and u......
-
Witt v. La Gorce Country Club, Inc., No. 3D08-1812 (Fla. App. 6/10/2009)
... ... See Peach State Roofing Inc. v. 2224 S. Trail Corp., 3 So ... ...
-
Witt v. La Gorce Country Club Inc
...we review questions of law, including those pertaining to contract interpretation, de novo. See Peach State Roofing Inc. v. 2224 S. Trail Corp., 3 So.3d 442, 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) Leopold v. Kimball Hill Homes Fla., Inc., 842 So.2d 133, 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)); Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Drumm......
-
Damages Resulting from a Lost Opportunity:the Proper Damage Date in Utah Contractand Tort Cases
...(2d Cir. 1990); Panike and Sons Farms, Inc. v. Smith, 212 P.3d 992, 998 (Idaho 2009);Peach State Roofing, Inc. v. 2224 S. Trail Corp., 3 So. 3d 442,445-46 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2009); J.J. Indus., LLC v.Bennett, 71 P.3d 1264, 1269 (Nev. 2003). There are some narrow exceptions to thi......