Opinion ID: 1808850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Building Damages

Text: Lafayette argues that plaintiff's award for building damages should be reduced as a forty-five percent allowance for overhead and profit is grossly excessive, damages for water hammer are not covered under the policy, and there was no evidence of structural damage. As the court of appeal stated, plaintiff's architectural expert's estimate did not include a forty-five percent allowance for overhead and profit, but only a twenty-five percent allowance, which the expert testified was reasonable and typical, as allowed by Louisiana Office of State Facility Planning and Control. R., Vol. XVII at 93. The expert further testified that the remaining twenty percent was for contingency purposes included for unidentified costs in construction jobs. R., Vol. XVII at 93. During his testimony, plaintiff's expert described contingency costs as real, foreseeable, but unidentified costs, that always happen on a job. R., Vol. XVII at 93. Based on plaintiff's expert's unopposed testimony, the jury did not err in accepting plaintiff's expert's figures as to overhead, profit, and contingency costs. Lafayette claims that water hammer damages are not covered under the policy; however, Lafayette fails to point to an exclusion which would exclude coverage for the damages. In the absence of any indication that a valid exclusion exists, it is impossible for this Court to determine that the trial court committed error in awarding water hammer damages. With regard to proof of structural damages, plaintiff's structural engineering expert testified that in his opinion, while he could not state to an absolute certainty that the building in question suffered structural damage without tearing out the walls, based on the fact that the building had been shaken by hurricane force winds for several hours and had suffered cracks in the walls due to that shaking, it was probable that the building had suffered structural damage. R., Vol. XVI at 155-161. Further, the expert testified that one of the building's porches had sustained cracks as it and the house moved in the wind. R., Vol. XVI at 162. Based on this expert's testimony, the trial court did not err in awarding damages for structural damages to the building.