Opinion ID: 805147
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: A guaranty is, of course, a form of contract, and we review a district court’s construction of any contract de novo.31 At trial, the parties agreed that there were no fact issues regarding Van Der Wall’s liability under the Guaranty. 30 We decline to designate a specific amount of damages under § 2.708(b), as we note that, because the district judge instructed the jury to award damages under subsection (a), the jury was never able to consider evidence of “due allowance for costs reasonably incurred and due credit for payments or proceeds of resale” under subsection (b). We therefore remand this factual issue for a jury to determine in a new trial — or bench trial, in the event that all parties waive their right to a jury— limited to the quantum of damages to be awarded. See Lubke v. City of Arlington, 455 F.3d 489, 498-500 (5th Cir. 2006) (ordering damages award to be “revised or retried” after the district court instructed the jury to apply incorrect legal measure of damages); see also Freedonia Broad. Corp., Inc. v. RCA Corp., 418 F.3d 781, 806 (5th Cir. 1973) (reversing and ordering new trial when, among other errors, the district court gave erroneous instructions for the legal measure of damages). 31 See Am. Nat’l Gen. Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 274 F.3d 319, 323 (5th Cir. 2001) (“The district court’s interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law that we [ ]review de novo.”) 17 Case: 10-20634 Document: 00511931930 Page: 18 Date Filed: 07/24/2012 No. 10-20634 Thus, the district court decided the issue whether Van Der Wall is bound under the Guaranty as a matter of law.