Opinion ID: 77338
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Costs for Replacing Pensacola Christian College's Glass

Text: 20 Before trial, Reichhold moved for partial summary judgment as to Glasslam's claims for future glass-replacement damages. Because Glasslam's initial disclosures made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and its answers to interrogatories identified only nine customers that had actually experienced resin-related glass problems, Reichhold argued that any damages derived from future claims made by any other customers would be speculative and, therefore, not compensable. The district court partially granted Reichhold's motion as to speculative damages, which it defined as any future replacement claims unrelated to any of the specific customer complaints Glasslam identified in its answers. Notably, in its answers, Glasslam identified Norman Foxworth, Dependable Glass Works, Covington, LA 70434 as a complaining customer, and explained that Dependable Glass Works experienced problems with resin sold by Glasslam and manufactured by Reichhold. Glasslam's answer also explained that there are unknown damages at a college in Pensacola in which $5.9 million was spent on laminated glass and installation. 21 At trial, Glasslam called Foxworth of Dependable Glass, who testified that he installed Safety Plus 1 glass in two Pensacola Christian College buildings. He explained that the glass had already begun to fail: It had been installed about four or five months and we had a — small amount of pieces — three or four — maybe ten — I am not sure of the number of the pieces of glass we needed to replace. And we provided the glass and replaced them. Foxworth also said that, six months later, Pensacola Christian College call[ed] and said... they had some more glass that was going bad. Then, two weeks before the trial, Foxworth received yet another complaint from the college regarding defects in nine [additional] pieces of glass in Furman Dining Hall ... scattered all over the building ... like a checkerboard. According to Foxworth, the glass exhibited deterioration of the resin and the interlayer. Reichhold's own glass expert also testified that he observed some delamination when he inspected glass installed in the college's auditorium. 22 Foxworth testified that the replacement cost would be $300,000 for defective glass in the college's dining hall and $12 million for defective glass in the auditorium. Although Foxworth had not yet made a claim for replacement of the Pensacola Christian College glass, he testified that making a claim appeared inevitable: 23 Q: Have you made a claim — well, you don't like the word claim—have you talked with Steve Howes [Glasslam's owner] about Furman Dining Hall? 24 A: I have not. 25 .... 26 Q: Have you made a claim on Glasslam for that $12 million for replacement? 27 A: As of this moment I have not, but I have counseling that we have to — we are reviewing. From the information that I am receiving in the last three to four weeks, it appears I have no choice unless Glasslam can assure me how I am going to get the money to replace the glass. 28 Q: The $12,000,000? 29 A: Yes, sir. The $300,000 plus the $12,000,000. 30 At the close of Glasslam's case, Reichhold moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50, urging that the jury should not be allowed to award any damages for replacement of the Pensacola Christian College glass. Reichhold explained that the district court had already granted partial summary judgment barring recovery as to potential claims for exposure for faulty glass, and argued that this ruling necessarily barred Glasslam from recovering for any damages other than the specific complaints alleged in Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories. The district court said that the issue could be addressed through jury instructions and that Reichhold could move to correct any judgment that was not supported by the evidence. At the close of all evidence, the court denied Reichhold's renewed Rule 50 motion. 31 During the charging conference, Reichhold again raised its concern about Glasslam's claim for damages related to replacement of the college's glass: 32 THE COURT: Didn't I rule on that? Didn't I say that speculative claims that haven't even been made are out of the lawsuit? But I don't think I excluded legitimate claims that were made that just haven't been paid yet by Glasslam. 33 MR. LOTTERHOS [Reichhold's Attorney]: But, your honor, the claims are not legitimate and Glasslam has no obligation to pay them unless there has been a judgment against Glasslam. For instance, if you were to hand them $12,000,000 for Pensacola Christian College, the college—right now that there is only nine panes of glass that are delaminated in that college. Suppose none of them ever delaminate .... 34 THE COURT: And I think you should be able to argue that to the jury that they shouldn't give any money for Pensacola College. But if the jury sees otherwise, if the jury sees that this claim is a legitimate claim and it's just a question of time before Glasslam is going to have to pay it, then it seems to me that non-speculative future damages are legitimate. 35 Ultimately, the district court gave the following jury instruction, proposed by Glasslam, and over Reichhold's objection: Glasslam may only seek to recover damages for those specific claims which have been presented to you during this trial. You should not consider at this time any damages for future claims which have not been specifically presented in this trial. After deliberation, the jury awarded Glasslam damages for the college's glass. 36 In post-trial motions, Reichhold again asserted that damages for replacement of the college's glass were impermissibly speculative and precluded by the district court's partial summary judgment. Again, the district court denied these motions.