Wolfe v. LeVasseur-Hinson Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | VASSEUR-HINSON,No. 9798,9798 |
| Citation | 147 So.2d 747 |
| Parties | Darwin Cozad WOLFE and Mabel Warren Wolfe, Plaintiffs-Appellees. v. LeCONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al.,Defendants,-appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Bodenheimer, Looney, Richie & Jones, Shreveport, for Central Mutual ins. co.
Nelson & Gray, Shreveport, for LeVasseur-Hinson Construction Co.
Wilkinson, Lewis, Madison & Woods, Shreveport, for appellees.
Before HARDY, AYRES and BOLIN, JJ.
This is a suit by plaintiffs, husband and wife, as owners of a home, to recover damages from the defendant building contracting firm in the amounts expended and to be expended for the replacement of buckled and warped flooring. Other defects in construction were urged in plaintiffs' original petition but have been eliminated from consideration by the defendant contractors' agreement on trial of the case to correct the same. By supplemental petition plaintiffs prayed for additional damage in the nature of inconvenience suffered during replacement of the flooring. Joined as a party defendant was plaintiffs' 'all risk' property insurance carrier. Defendant insurer interposed an exception of no cause and no right of action, which was overruled, whereupon it filed a third party pleading against defendant contractor, praying for judgment over in the event it should be held liable to its insured.
After trial there was judgment in favor of plaintiffs against both defendants, in solido, for the principal sum of $3,087.15, together with interest at the legal rate from date of judicial demand; further judgment against defendant contractor for the principal sum of $500.00, representing damages for inconvenience, etc., caused by replacement of the floors; finally, judgment in favor of defendant insurer as third party plaintiff against the defendant contractor for such amount as said insurer might be called upon to pay to plaintiffs. From this judgment defendant contractor has appealed in its entirety and defendant insurer has appealed from that portion affecting its liability.
With respect to plaintiffs' main demand against the defendant contractor, we regard this case as involving purely factual issues. Plaintiffs entered into a contract with defendant, LeVasseur-Hinson Construction Company, for the building of a residence, which was duly completed, the contract price paid by plaintiffs, and the residence occupied by them on February 25, 1961. Defendant, Central Mutual Insurance Company, issued to plaintiffs a broad form policy of fire and extended insurance covering their residence and premises, which policy, by its terms, became effective March 15, 1961. Within a month, more or less, after plaintiffs occupied their home, they began to experience difficulties caused by the buckling of vinyl tile floors in certain rooms of their home. The contractor replaced a portion of the objectionable flooring, but, thereafter, the unsatisfactory condition of these floors increased, became more evident and, additionally, the hardwood floors in other rooms began to buckle to such an extent as to become unsightly and, indeed, to become impracticable for the purpose and use for which they were intended. Despite numerous demands by plaintiffs, the defendant contractor refused to accept further responsibility, whereupon plaintiffs caused replacement of the vinyl floors to be made by another contractor, for which work they paid the amount charged therefor and further procured an estimate, which the record does not successfully controvert, as to the cost of replacement of the hardwood floors.
Plaintiffs' petition primarily alleges that the defects in the flooring were caused by the contractor's negligence in installing wet flooring, and, alternatively, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was asserted.
Before this court counsel for defendant contractor has relied primarily upon the specification of error with respect to the application of the doctrine of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brenham v. Southern Pacific Company
...contractor, and a plumbing subcontractor. Hebert v. Pierrotti, 205 So.2d 888 (La.App.3d Cir. 1968); Wolfe v. LeVasseur-Hinson Construction Company, 147 So.2d 747 (La.App.2d Cir. 1962); Hunter v. Mayfield, 106 So.2d 330 (La.App.2d Cir. 1958). All of these cases involved works by the job. The......
-
Adams-Arapahoe Joint School Dist. No. 28-J v. Continental Ins. Co.
...design and/or construction is not a risk at all; it is merely a condition of the insured property. In Wolfe v. LeVasseur-Hinson Construction Co., 147 So.2d 747 (La.Ct.App.1962), the floors of a house were negligently installed prior to the purchase of an all-risk policy. Later, the floors b......
-
Hogan Exploration, Inc. v. Monroe Engineering Associates, Inc.
...performed in a skillful, careful, diligent and good workmanlike manner. LSA-C.C. arts. 1930 and 2769; Wolfe v. LeVasseur-Hinson Construction Company, 147 So.2d 747 (La.App. 2d Cir.1962); Hunter v. Mayfield, 106 So.2d 330 (La.App. 2d Cir.1958); Rotolo v. Stewart, 127 So.2d 24 (La.App. 1st Ci......
-
Rogers v. Nelson Dodge, Inc.
...in a skillful, careful, diligent and good workmanlike manner. LSA-C.C. arts. 1930 and 2769; 1 ) Wolfe v. LeVasseur-Hinson Construction Company, 147 So.2d 747 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1962); Hunter v. Mayfield, 106 So.2d 330 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1958); Rotolo v. Stewart, 127 So.2d 24 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1......