[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-13668

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cv-00449-CDL

ALEXANDER CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC.,

United States of America, ex rel,

HYDRO GREEN LLC, 

United States of America, ex rel,

 Plaintiffs-Counter-

 Defendants-Appellees,

versus

SAUER, INC.,

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Defendants-Counter

 Claimants-Cross Claimants,

JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC,

f.k.a. Jordan Jones & Goulding Inc, 

 Defendant-Cross Defendant-

 Appellant.

Case: 15-13668 Date Filed: 12/05/2016 Page: 1 of 3 
2

_______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(December 5, 2016)

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and ROGERS,* Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

This case arose out of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers roadway 

construction project at Fort Benning, Georgia. Sauer, Inc., was the Corps’ general 

contractor; Alexander Contracting Co. and Hydro-Green were Sauer’s paving 

subcontractors, and Jacobs Engineering, Inc., was the engineer Sauer employed to 

design the project. 

This appeal involves Alexander and Hydro-Green’s claim that Jacobs 

negligently misrepresented the thickness of the pavement that the Corps’ contract 

with Sauer required. They alleged that, in bidding for the paving work, they relied 

on Jacobs’ representation that the paving would consist of 4.5 inches of asphalt, 

instead of the six inches of asphalt as the Corps’ specifications required. 

Consequently, their bids for the paving work, which Sauer accepted, were too low 

and they had to absorb the cost of the additional 1.5 inches of asphalt. The jury 

found that Jacobs made the negligent misrepresentation alleged, that Alexander 

 

* Honorable John M. Rogers, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by 

designation.

Case: 15-13668 Date Filed: 12/05/2016 Page: 2 of 3 
3

and Hydro-Green reasonably relied on it to their detriment, and that their losses 

amounted to $356,664 and $114,311 respectively, and therefore assessed their 

damages in those amounts.

Jacobs moved the District Court for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), arguing that Alexander and Hydro-Green 

were required to prove professional negligence and had failed to do so, and that 

they had failed to prove Jacobs had misrepresented a material fact which 

Alexander and Hydro-Green had reasonably relied on to their detriment. Jacobs

moved the court to provide on the verdict form submitted to the jury for 

apportionment of damages between Jacobs and Sauer. The court denied Jacobs’ 

motion. Jacobs challenges these dispositions in this appeal.

After entertaining oral argument and considering the parties’ briefs, we find 

no error in the District Court’s denial of Jacobs’ motion. The evidence was plainly 

sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and the denial of Rule 50(b) relief. As for 

the apportionment issue, we discern no misapplication of Georgia law. Because 

Georgia’s apportionment statute, Ga. Code § 51-12-33, requires the trier-of-fact to 

apportion damages only in cases involving injury to person or property, the statute 

does not require apportionment in this case. See City of Atlanta v. Benator, 714 

S.E. 2d 109, 117 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-13668 Date Filed: 12/05/2016 Page: 3 of 3