Williams v. Hubbard
| Decision Date | 17 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 789 S.W.2d 810 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Loyd WILLIAMS and Connie Williams, d/b/a C & L Home Improvements Company, Defendants-Appellants, v. Dennis HUBBARD and Sandee Hubbard, Plaintiffs-Respondents. 41879. |
Cenobio Lozano, Jr., Harrisonville, for defendants-appellants.
Stephen K. Nordyke, Butler, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Before KENNEDY, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and BERREY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment after jury trial awarding $29,000 in assessed damages to plaintiffs/respondents in a case involving a breach of contract for failure to perform home improvement work in a good and workmanlike manner. Appellants present four points in this appeal, but only the first of these will be addressed as it is dispositive. Appellants contend that the trial court erred to their prejudice by instructing the jury as to the wrong measure of damages. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Respondents, Sandee and Dennis Hubbard purchased their home in Butler, Missouri, in 1983. In 1987, the Hubbards entered into a series of contracts with appellants, C & L Home Improvements Company, Loyd Williams' company. These contracts called for C & L to: (1) install vinyl siding and vented insulation on the Hubbards' house at a cost of $7,750; (2) construct a front porch with posts set in concrete having a roof with the same pitch as the house, at a cost of $1,006; (3) construct a double garage, install floor tile, install a shower and put in new heating and air conditioning units at a cost of $13,248; and (4) install an atrium door, a steel door between the kitchen and garage, and a steel door with a storm door for the front door at a cost of $1,600.
The work was done by C & L, but the end product left something to be desired. Numerous witnesses testified regarding the quality of the work. The siding installed did not carry the lifetime warranty specified in the contract. Both of the Hubbards testified that the siding was not properly installed. Gaps were left around the doors and proper caulking was not done. There was leakage around the doors and windows which allowed water to enter the house. Nor was the insulation installed under the siding properly as its seams were not taped as called for in the contract.
The porch constructed by C & L had water problems. The shingles did not extend over the outside and water would run underneath. Allen Berwald, a builder called as a witness for the plaintiffs, testified that the porch posts were put in the ground and that they would not last. The garage constructed by C & L was also substandard. The concrete poured for the floor of the garage was not square with the house. Water leakage was also a problem. The garage was not built on the same slope as the house and the door purchased to be installed between the garage and house could not be used. The garage doors fall off continually, and the windows will not stay closed.
There are also problems with the flooring installed by C & L, as well as the heating and air conditioning units. Respondents also experienced difficulty with the shower they had installed as water ran out from the bottom.
As might be expected, the witnesses gave a wide range of monetary values when testifying as to the damages suffered by respondents. Mrs. Hubbard testified that the value of the property prior to the work was $39,000. After the work was done she felt that the house was worth nothing and the land was worth $5,000., resulting in an estimate of damages of $34,000. Mr. Hubbard's estimate was substantially the same; his estimate as to damages netted out at $35,000. Robert Jefferson, respondent's appraiser, testified that the house was worth $39,000 before the work and $11,500 after. Witness Berwald was of the opinion that it would cost $27,235.45...
To continue reading
Request your trial