Racine County v. Oracular Milwaukee, Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 April 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007AP2861.,2007AP2861. |
| Citation | 2010 WI 25,781 N.W.2d 88 |
| Parties | RACINE COUNTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ORACULAR MILWAUKEE, INC., Oracular, Inc., Oracular of Minnesota, LLC and Oracular of Michigan, Inc., Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the defendant-respondents-petitioners there were briefs by Jeffrey P. Aiken, Eric J. Meier, and Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Jeffrey P. Aiken.
For the plaintiff-appellant there was a brief by Jeffrey L. Leavell, Danielle N. Lutz, and Jeffrey Leavell, S.C., Racine, and oral argument by Jeffrey L. Leavell.
This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals1 that reversed and remanded an order of the Racine County Circuit Court, Judge Stephen A. Simanek presiding, which granted summary judgment to Oracular Milwaukee, Inc., Oracular, Inc., Oracular of Minnesota, LLC, and Oracular of Michigan, Inc. (collectively Oracular) and dismissed Racine County's breach of contract claim. Racine County alleged that Oracular, a computer systems and programming consultant, breached the Consulting Service Agreement (the Agreement) entered into between the parties. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Oracular on the grounds that Racine County's failure to name an expert witness was deficient as a matter of law. According to the circuit court, the Agreement was effectively a contract for professional services, for which the basis of liability is a claim of negligence. Racine County was therefore required to present expert testimony in order to demonstrate that Oracular's performance fell below the standard of care in the computer consulting industry. The circuit court denied Racine County's motion for reconsideration, and Racine County appealed.
¶ 2 The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that Racine County was not required to present expert testimony because Oracular's alleged breaches of the Agreement were within the realm of the average juror's ordinary experience. Contrary to the circuit court's conclusion, the court of appeals held that for purposes of this case, computer consultants are not "professionals" and thereby not subject to professional standards of care. Instead, the court concluded that the Agreement between Racine County and Oracular was a simple contract for services.
¶ 3 Oracular petitioned this court for review, and we accepted. Though on different grounds, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.
¶ 4 The issue before this court is whether in order to survive summary judgment, Racine County was required to name an expert witness when the complaint alleged that Oracular breached the parties' Consulting Service Agreement by failing to institute the software as promised.
¶ 5 We conclude that in order to survive summary judgment, Racine County was not required to name an expert witness. As alleged, Racine County's breach of contract claim does not present issues so unusually complex as to require expert testimony as a matter of law. In so concluding, we do not close the door to the possibility that expert testimony may later assist the trier of fact in evaluating the breach of contract claim. Rather, we decide that based upon the pleadings and affidavits, Racine County was not required to name an expert witness in order to proceed. Moreover, the breach of contract claim presents numerous genuine issues of material fact which otherwise preclude summary judgment. Accordingly, though on different grounds,2 we affirm the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.
¶ 6 On November 10, 2003, Racine County submitted a Request for Proposal (RFP) to prospective vendors, "seeking a qualified consultant to upgrade its current Peoplesoft World software to Peoplesoft One 8.0 and install Peoplesoft One Human Resource and Payroll modules." In essence, Racine County sought the assistance of a computer consultant, comprised of a "Project Manager/Project Team," in the upgrade of its human resources, payroll, and financial software systems. According to the RFP, the project would include "software installation, data conversion (for payroll only), integration with other applications, final implementation, going live on Peoplesoft One, and training," and completion of the project would "result in a fully operational system tailored to the needs of Racine County."
¶ 7 In outlining the project's scope, the RFP provided that "the Project Manager will be involved with defining the project scope and creating the organization and structure needed to complete a successful upgrade and implementation." In addition, the RFP assigned the Project Manager training responsibilities:
¶ 8 The RFP further provided that the project was to be completed in three stages. Phase 1, titled "Set up of Infrastructure and Configurative Network Computing," required the consultant to "install and configure Peoplesoft One 8.0 on the deployment server and set up a minimum of three fat client stations that will all run locally." Phase 2 was titled "Complete install, set up and training for new Peoplesoft One Human Resources/Payroll." Within that phase, the RFP outlined the current and required functionality of Racine County's human resources and payroll systems. Phase 3 was titled "Upgrade current functioning modules from Peoplesoft World to Peoplesoft One."
¶ 9 Finally, the RFP listed several "Proposal Requirements." Relevant to this case, the RFP provided that "vendors shall submit a detailed proposal" that includes a "Project Task List":
¶ 10 On December 3, 2003, Oracular submitted to Racine County a "Proposal for PeopleSoft Consulting" (the proposal). In the proposal's "Executive Summary," Oracular stated its "intent to work with Racine County to implement OneWorld as a new baseline enterprise software solution." Oracular wrote that it would "combine the talents of its consulting organization with the talents of the Racine County staff in order to complete this project on time and on budget." The proposal's "Preliminary Project Plan" indicated that Oracular would "plan a staggered approach to begin each major area of accomplishment while focusing on a combined Go-Live date of September 1, 2004." Oracular also wrote, however, that "a detailed work plan will be completed prior to beginning the project and will need to be verified by the project team at that time."
¶ 11 The proposal also included a list of "Project Assumptions." Two of those assumptions were categorized as "Training & Education":
¶ 12 Finally, to complete the project, Oracular proposed a seven-phase plan. Those seven phases were broken down in a Gantt chart, attached to the proposal as Addendum A. The Gantt chart listed a project duration of 170 working days and a "Go-Live" date of September 6, 2004.
¶ 13 On January 12, 2004, Oracular submitted to Racine County an additional addendum to its proposal, which made minor budget adjustments. The addendum also provided:
¶ 14 Racine County selected Oracular as the vendor for its software upgrade project. On February 2, 2004, the parties entered into a "Consulting Service Agreement," which incorporated by reference the RFP, the proposal, Addendum A to the proposal, and the January 12, 2004, addendum to the proposal. In the event of a conflict or inconsistency among the documents, the Agreement instituted the following prioritization: (a) the Agreement, (b) Addendum A to the proposal, (c) the January 12, 2004, addendum to the proposal, (d) the proposal, and (e) the RFP. Pursuant to the Agreement, the total amount of the project was not to exceed $389,250. Oracular agreed to provide consulting services to Racine County, and Racine County agreed to accept consulting services and pay Oracular, on certain terms, including:
In addition, the Agreement included a termination provision, which provided that "either party may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waity v. LeMahieu
..."Whether the circuit court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law that this court reviews de novo." Racine County v. Oracular Milwaukee, Inc., 2010 WI 25, ¶24, 323 Wis. 2d 682, 781 N.W.2d 88 (quotations omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions......
-
Tatera v. Fmc Corp.
...to FMC is a question of law that we review independently, applying the same standards used by the circuit court. See Racine Cnty. v. Oracular Milwaukee, Inc., 2010 WI 25, ¶ 24, 323 Wis.2d 682, 781 N.W.2d 88. Summary judgment “shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to inter......
-
State v. Pico
...without the aid of expert testimony, ‘the admission of such testimony is not only unnecessary but improper.’ " Racine Cty. v. Oracular Milwaukee, Inc., 2010 WI 25, ¶ 28, 323 Wis. 2d 682, 781 N.W.2d 88 (quoting Cramer v. Theda Clark Mem'l Hosp., 45 Wis. 2d 147, 151, 172 N.W.2d 427 (1969) ). ......
-
State v. Kandutsch
...down a trial is not to be taken lightly, which is why the requirement of expert testimony is an extraordinary one. Racine Cnty. v. Oracular Milwaukee, Inc., 2010 WI 25, ¶ 28, 323 Wis.2d 682, 781 N.W.2d 88. A circuit court should take this “extraordinary step” only when the issues before the......