Case Title: Winey v. William E. Dailey, Inc.

Citation: 161 Vt. 129, 636 A.2d 744

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1993-11-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
WINEY_V_WILLIAM_E_DAILEY_INC.91-559; 161 Vt. 129; 636 A.2d 744

[Filed 05-Nov-1993]

 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 91-559


 Lee Winey                                    Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      Bennington Superior Court

 William E. Dailey, Inc. & Richard &          May Term, 1993
 Deborah Cutler, d/b/a/ Cutler
 Construction Co.; and Ray &
 Scott Racicot


 Theodore S. Mandeville, Jr., J.

 David Putter of Saxer, Anderson, Wolinsky and Sunshine, Montpelier, and
  Lee Winey, pro se, Shaftsbury, for plaintiff-appellee

 Michael B. Clapp of Dinse, Erdmann & Clapp, Burlington, for defendant-
  appellant


 PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., and Peck, J. (Ret.),
          Specially Assigned


     DOOLEY, J.   This action arises out of the construction of a home for
 plaintiff, Lee Winey, in the Town of Shaftsbury.  Alleging breach of
 contract, fraud and consumer fraud, she sued the foundation contractor,
 William E. Dailey, Inc.; the general contractor, Cutler Construction
 Company, along with owner Richard Cutler and his wife, Deborah Cutler; and
 the plumbing, heating and electrical contractors.  The case went to trial
 against the foundation and general contractors and resulted in a plaintiff's
 verdict for $70,000 against each defendant on the breach of contract
 theories.  The jury also awarded $3,628 to the general contractor pursuant
 to a counterclaim for unpaid bills.  Defendant Richard Cutler has appealed

 

 the verdict against him, alleging an error in the jury charge and that the
 amount of the verdict is not supported by the evidence.  Plaintiff has
 cross-appealed, alleging with respect to Richard Cutler that the trial court
 erred in directing a verdict against her on her fraud-in-the-inducement
 claim and her similar consumer fraud claim, in its instructions on consumer
 fraud, and in its failure to award prejudgment interest.  She also claims
 that the court erred in granting a directed verdict for Deborah Cutler.  We
 affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
      For purposes of this opinion, we will refer to Richard Cutler and
 Cutler Construction Company as defendant.  The construction business was not
 incorporated.  Plaintiff alleged that it was a partnership or joint venture
 of Richard and Deborah Cutler.  Richard Cutler argued that it was a sole
 proprietorship owned by him.  The proper characterization of the business is
 relevant to the potential liability of Deborah Cutler.
      Plaintiff and defendant entered into a written agreement on August 14,
 1984 for defendant to serve as general contractor to build a house for
 plaintiff in accordance with certain blueprints.  The anticipated completion
 date was March 10, 1985.  The contract contained a provision that allowed
 plaintiff to terminate it if defendant's billing rose above $215,000.  It
 provided defendant a contractor's fee of $20,000 and required defendant to
 bill for material and subcontractor payments at cost.  It also required
 plaintiff to reimburse for wages paid by defendant and set forth a wage rate
 by type of workers on the job.
      When defendant's billings reached almost $300,000, plaintiff exercised
 her right to terminate the contract.  Defendant had about $25,000 worth of
 work to do to complete the house.

 

      Four breach of contract theories were submitted to the jury:  (1)
 defendant failed to perform in accordance with the plans and specifications,
 and any authorized changes; (2) defendant failed to ensure that all labor
 and materials were of good quality; (3) defendant overbilled for labor and
 materials; and (4) defendant billed for labor and materials not used in the
 house construction.  The jury found that defendant had breached the contract
 by deviating from plans and specifications, overbilling for labor or
 materials, and billing for labor or materials not used on the job.  It found
 defendant did not fail to provide good quality labor and materials.
      Certain fraud and consumer fraud claims also went to the jury.
 Plaintiff alleged that defendant had defrauded her by charging her for labor
 and materials not expended in the construction of the house and in
 overstating the cost of labor and materials.  Plaintiff's consumer fraud
 claim was based upon the same allegations, and, additionally, that defendant
 had concealed deviations from specifications and construction done in a
 defective and unworkmanlike manner.  The jury found for defendant on the
 fraud and consumer fraud claims.
                                     I.
                                     A.
      We first address plaintiff's arguments that despite the verdict in her
 favor, she is entitled to a new trial on her fraud and consumer fraud claims
 and her claims against Deborah Cutler.  First, plaintiff alleges that the
 court erred in failing to submit to the jury her fraud-in-the-inducement
 claim.  Her claim was that defendant told plaintiff that he would complete
 the house for $215,000, exclusive of the cost of the foundation, although he
 personally believed he would charge her $270,000 plus the price of the
 foundation.  She testified that she relied on the estimate in deciding to

 

 hire defendant.  The trial court refused to charge this theory because it
 found no evidence that defendant made a knowing misrepresentation of his
 estimate.
      Plaintiff's claim to recovery on this theory is grounded in her
 position that misrepresentation of a construction estimate is actionable in
 these circumstances.  Our cases have often drawn a distinction between a
 statement of fact and a statement of opinion, holding that misrepresentation
 of the former can be fraud, but misrepresentation of the latter cannot.  See
 Proctor Trust Co. v. Upper Valley Press, Inc., 137 Vt. 346, 350,