Court Opinion

ID: 9700794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:49:33.90909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:14.627240
License: Public Domain

ROWLEY, Judge,
concurring:
I join in all but two provisions of the majority’s thorough and well-reasoned Opinion. The first statement in which I do not join appears in footnote 6 (majority op. at 360), where the majority, after noting that “we do not follow the trial *363courts’ apparent rulings” concerning the admissibility of the testimony of tradesmen, proceeds to enumerate the circumstances under which “we would find the evidence sufficient____” The second statement is the observation that while Owens-Corning’s claim for attorney’s fees has been prematurely raised, “we would be disinclined to grant an award for attorney’s fees or costs against appellants” (majority op. at 362). As we are not required to resolve either of these issues at this point, I would postpone their resolution until such time as they are properly before this Court.