NO. 07-06 -030 9-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A MA Y28, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ SAN ANT ONIO AEROS PACE, L.P., APPE LLA NT V. GOR E D ESIG N CO MP LETION S, L TD., APP ELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 45 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF B EXA R CO UNT Y; NO . 200 3- CI -1 3979; HO NO RA BLE R IC HA RD E. PR IC E, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Bef ore CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ON MOTION FOR REHEA RING
In respon se to the moti on for re hear ing of appel lan t, San A ntoni o Aerospac e, L. P. (S AA) , w e g ra nt t he moti on, w it hdr aw our opi nio n and j udg ment of Apr il 2, 2008, and i ss ue the fol low ing opi nio n i n i ts pla ce. Fac tual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und SAAhired Gore a s a subco ntract or to rem ove and reinst all the inte rior ofa VIP MD11 ai rc ra ft for $860,00 0. Pursuantto the “ W or k S chedu le, ” at E x hib itA- 2 of the cont ra ct,2

Gore w as to ha v e compl eted the re ins tal lat ion by June 9, 20 03. Subs eq uent to t he i nit ial cont ra ct bei ng ex ecut ed, a ch ang e of sc ope ag re ement w as entered w h er eby Gore w as to r ecei v e a n a d d i t i o n a l $ 6 1 , 0 0 0 t o o p e r a t e a n d ma i n t a i n a s t o r e ro o m i n w h i c h a l l of the re mov ed ai rc ra ft parts w er e to be s tor ed. Del ay s occ ur re d w hen t he ai rc ra ft and par ts needed for rein sta ll ati on w er e notmade av ail abl e to Gore. As a resul t of the del ay s, Gore enc ountered addi ti onal and unex pect ed e xpe n se s. Go re requ e st e d a d d it io n a l co m p e n sa ti o n f ro m SAA b y w a y of a workch a n ge order

. SAA re fused Gore’s r eq uestfor a w or k c han ge order

. As a r esul t of thi s c onfli ct, Gore w it hdr ew

from t he proje ct and fil ed s uitcl aimi ng brea ch o f c ontractby

SAA and requesting contra ctua l dam ages or, a lt erna tiv ely, dam ages for quantum m er uit

. SAA answ er ed and filed a c ountercl aim all eg ing thatGore had br eache d the co ntractby aba ndo ning the projec t

. SAA also claim ed th at it had bee n da ma ged by the unjust enr ic hment of Gore and by ex pense s s uff er ed w hen G or e aband oned t he proje ct.
T he jury hea rd e v iden ce f rom Go re that its qua ntu mm eruit cl aim w as for $84, 045. Addi ti onal ly , t he ju ry h e a rd ev ide nce that the t otal v alu e of the cont ra ct to G or e w as $921,00 0. SAA pre sent ed ev ide nce that ithad been damag ed i n the amount of $238,900. After the cl ose of ev ide nce, the jur y re tur ned a v erdic t findi ng : 1) Gor e h a d pe rf or med compens abl e w or k; 2) the v alu e of G or e’s compens abl e w or k w as $921,00 0; 3) Gore w as not u nju stl y

enr ic hed t o t h e d e trimentof SAA; 4) SAA breache d the co ntract ; 5) SAA unr eason abl y

r efused Go re ’s r eq uestfor a w or k c hang e order ; 6) Gore b re ached the cont ra ct; 7) SAA

breache d the co ntractfirst; 8) Gore’ s brea ch of the c ontractw as ex cus ed by SAA ’s pr ior

breach; 9) SAA ’s breach was notex cus ed; 1 0) no d amag es to S AA for3

Go r e’ s b r ea c h; 1 1) t he a mo un t of G ore’ s a tt or ne y fee s ; 12 ) G ore di d no t s to p w ork becau se SAA faile d to pay inv oic es or ack now led g ed amounts w hen due ; 13) the caus es of the del ay s i n c omplet ion of the rein sta ll ati on w or k; and 14) the amount of SAA’ s a ttor ney fees. By f iv e issues, SAA cont end s tha t 1) the e v iden ce w as legally insuf f icient to supp ort the aw ard of $172,000 in qua ntu mm eruit damages to Gor e; 2) the aw ard of atto rn ey fees to G or e w as er ro r becau se there w as no l eg al basi s for Gore to re cov er

att or ney fees; 3) SAA prov ed i ts enti tl ement t o $238, 000 i n damag es from Gore as a mat ter of l aw ; 4) SAA shoul d hav e been aw arded at tor ney fees bec ause itw as enti tl ed to j udg ment as a mat ter of law ; an d 5 ) a c o n d itiona l issue that Gore w as no t ent itled to recover und er a cont ract t h e o ry. Leg al Suff ic ien cy of the E v ide nce SAA ini ti all y

pos it s t hat t her e is no ev ide nce to suppo rtthe jur y ’s damag e aw ar d of $172,00 0. In answ er ing the q uest ion s s ubmit ted, the j ur y found thatthe re asona ble v alu e of compens abl e w or k p er formed by

Gore w as $921,00 0. Acc ordin g to SAA’ s a nal y si s, the jur y ’s $172,000 aw ar d to Gore is the differ ence betw een w hat G or e w as pai d, $7 49,000, and the to tal v alue of the cont ract, i nclud ing ma naging the store room , $92 1,0 00. How ever, SAA cont ends that Gore cannot be entit led to the f ull va lue of the cont ra ct w hen G or e has ad mi tt ed t ha t i t di d no t ful l y p er for m.4

Standa rd of Rev iew Initially, an allega t io n t h a t the re is no evi den ce to sup port th e da ma ge aw ard is ana ly z ed a s an att ack on the legal suf f iciency of

the evidence . Raw

Hide Oil & Ga s, Inc.
v . M ax us E x pl orat i on C o. , 76 6 S. W .2 d 26 4, 2 75 ( Tex .A pp .– Am ar i l l o 19 88 , w r i t de ni ed ). In rev iew ing a v erdic t for l eg al suffici ency , w e are r eq uired to credi t ev ide nce that suppo rt s the v erdict, if

reason able jurors could, and disregard contrary evidence, unless rea sona ble jurors c oul d not

. Krog er Tex . Lt d. P ’s hip v . Su ber u, 21 6 S. W .3d 7 88, 793 ( Tex . 200 6) (c it ing C it y

of Kel ler v . W il son, 168 S.W .3d 8 02, 8 27 (Tex

. 2005) ). A chal len g e to the l eg al suf f iciency of

the evidence w ill be su staine d w hen , am ong o t h e r th ings, the evidence off er ed to es tabl is h a v it al fact does not amount t o mor e tha n a s ci nti ll a o f ev ide nce. I d. Ev ide nce that is so w eak as to do no mor e tha n c re ate a mer e s ur mis e or su spi ci on th at a fa c te xis t s d o e s n o te xc e e d a s c in t il la o f e vid e n c e . I d

. (c it in g F o rd Mo t o r C o . v. Ri d gwa y, 135 S.W .3d 598 , 601 (Tex. 2004 )). Ana ly sis
A rev iew of the record rev eal s that, f ro m the outse t, Gor e clai med that its ac ti on w as for qua ntu mm eruit

and not ba sed u pon the t o t a l v alue of the con tract. T his w as Gore’s posi ti on i n openi ng arg uments and w as cont inu ed by the t est imony of Gore’s presi dent and its chief f inan cial of

f icer. In each instan ce, the w itnesse s calculate d the dam ages to Gore to be $84,045

. Our re v iew of t he re cord re v eal s that the onl y basi s for the jur y ’s $172, 000 damag e aw ar d to Gor e i s subt ra cti ng the $ 749,000 thatSAA pai d Gore from t he $921 ,000 total v al ue of th e c on trac t. H ow ev er , as SA A c on te nd s , Go r e i s no t en ti tl ed to the f ullPursuantto Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 44.1 (b ) the e nti re ca se shal l be 1 re tr ied

. 5 cont ract v alue beca use it did n ot f ully perform. Tha t Gore did not f ully perform was also recogniz ed b y

the trial court’s instruct ion t o t h e j urythatGore ha d no t subst ant ially com plete d the w ork on th e aircraf t. As a result, there is no evidence supp orting the jury’ s $172,00 0 aw ar d. Acc ordin g ly , w e rev erse the t ri al co u rt’s j udg ment i n reg ard to the qua ntu mm eruit

dam ages suf

fered byGore. How ever, the re is leg ally suf f icient evidence that Gore suffered some damag es as a re sul t of S AA’ s condu ct. But, becau se the i ss ue of damag es w as cont est ed v ig orousl y by SAA , w e c annot r e nder j udg ment for a l ess er amount. For mosa Plas ti cs Cor p. v . Pres idi o Engr . & Con tr act ors, Inc ., 960 S. W .2d 4 1, 51 (Tex . 199 8)

. Ins tead, w e mustr emand th e c ase for a new tr ial

. I d. 1
Inas m u ch a s this is sue dis poses of thi s a ppeal , w e w il l not a ddr ess SAA ’s othe r cont enti ons. Con cl usi on Hav ing dete rmi ned t hat t he ev ide n ce i s le g all y i nsuffici ent a s t o the aw ar d of $172,00 0, bu t t hat t her e i s s uff ic ien t e vide n ce as t o s ome damag es, w e rev erse the judgme nt of

the trial court an d rem and the case for a new tr ial.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice