Court Opinion

ID: 9914882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-03 17:02:10.034668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:22.077862
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SALT MEADOWS                       §
HOMEOWNERS                         §
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,         §     No. 94, 2023
                                   §
      Plaintiffs Below,            §     Court Below: Superior Court
      Appellants,                  §     of the State of Delaware
                                   §
       v.                          §     C.A. No. S17C-05-018 (S)
                                   §
ZONKO BUILDERS, INC.,              §
                                   §
      Defendant Below,             §
      Appellee.                    §
                          Submitted: October 11, 2023
                          Decided:   January 3, 2024

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

Upon appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. AFFIRMED.

Matthew J. Rifino, Esquire, Kate R. Buck, Esquire, Shannon D. Humiston, Esquire
(argued), MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, for Plaintiffs
Below, Appellants Salt Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc., and Unit Owners.

Colin M. Shalk, Esquire (argued), Kenneth M. Doss, Esquire, Wilmington,
Delaware, CASARINO CHRISTMAN SHALK RANSOM & DOSS, P.A., for
Defendant Below, Appellee Zonko Builders, Inc.
SEITZ, Chief Justice:

      In May 2017, the Salt Meadows Homeowners Association and its

condominium owners (“Salt Meadows”) filed suit against the builder of their

condominium complex (“Zonko”). Salt Meadows sought compensation for water

damage to the buildings caused by faulty construction. The Superior Court granted

Salt Meadows’ summary judgment motion directed to liability but sent the damages

question to a jury. The jury awarded Salt Meadows $11.3 million in general

damages and $1.6 million for damages specific to the cost to repair support columns

in the complex.

      After the parties filed post-trial motions, the Superior Court denied Zonko’s

new trial motion but granted remittitur and reduced the general damage award to

$8.3 million because some of Salt Meadows’ damages were unsupported,

speculative, and excessive. The court also granted Zonko’s renewed motion for

judgment as a matter of law relating to column damages. It found that Salt Meadows

had at first claimed damages for columns supporting rear decks but then expanded

its claim without evidentiary support to include all columns in the complex. Finally,

the court awarded costs and pre- and post-judgment interest to Salt Meadows.

      On appeal, Salt Meadows claims that the Superior Court erred by: (1) granting

remittitur and Zonko’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law related to

column damages; (2) using the incorrect date of injury for calculating pre-judgment

                                         2
interest; and (3) using the incorrect date to calculate post-judgment interest. For the

reasons set forth below, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

                                            I.

       Salt Meadows is a five-building, twenty-unit condominium complex in

Fenwick Island, Delaware. The plaintiffs are the homeowners association and unit

owners.    The defendant, Zonko Builders, Inc., completed construction of the

condominium complex on April 11, 2007.1 In February 2016, a Salt Meadows unit

owner first discovered water damage in their building, which led other unit owners

to raise similar issues with the homeowners association.2

       In May 2017, Salt Meadows filed suit against Zonko, alleging “latent design

and construction defects to various common elements [of the units] as a result of

work done by [Zonko].”3         Salt Meadows filed a motion for partial summary

judgment and contended that Zonko was negligent as a matter of law and was

responsible for damages of at least $3 million.4 In a transcript ruling, the Superior

Court granted summary judgment in part and held, based largely on deposition

testimony from Zonko’s witness, that Zonko was negligent when it supervised the

work and constructed the units.5        The court, however, eventually denied Salt

1
  App. to Appellants’ Opening Br. at A1638 [hereinafter “A__”].
2
  A191.
3
  Id.
4
  Salt Meadows Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Zonko Builders, Inc., 2021 WL 2181426, at *1 (Del.
Super. Ct. May 27, 2021).
5
  Id.
                                            3
Meadows’ summary judgment motion regarding damages because “the

reasonableness of the costs incurred to date [was] in dispute.”6

       Before the damages trial, Salt Meadows offered to settle the litigation for $6.5

million.7 Zonko declined.8 Trial began in May 2022. During trial, the court denied

Zonko’s motion for judgment as a matter of law for damages specific to the cost to

repair columns in the condominium complex but noted that it would revisit the issue

later.9 In a special verdict form, the jury awarded $11.3 million in general damages

and $1.6 million for column damages.10

       After the damages trial, Zonko filed a motion for new trial or remittitur for

general damages and a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law for column

damages. Salt Meadows moved for costs and pre- and post-judgment interest. The

court granted Zonko’s motions in part.11 First, for remittitur, the court granted the

motion for two reasons: the jury relied on inadmissible and speculative evidence

when it awarded $3 million for pandemic-related inflation and for additional cleanup

costs;12 and with repair costs through trial of $2.4 million, it was unlikely that the

remaining repairs would cost more than the expert’s “worst-case” estimate of $8.3

6
  Id.
7
  A2681.
8
  Id.
9
  Salt Meadows Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Zonko Builders, Inc., 2023 WL 1370997, at *5 (Del.
Super. Ct. Jan. 31, 2023) [hereinafter Post-trial Decision].
10
   A1807.
11
   Post-trial Decision, at *3.
12
   A4915.
                                            4
million.13 In the court’s words, “the extra $3M awarded by the jury, over the already-

high $8.3M figure, shock[ed] the court’s conscience and sense of justice.”14 The

court denied Zonko’s motion for a new trial in light of its remittitur decision, but

also found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s $8.3 million general

damage verdict.15

        Second, the court granted Zonko’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter

of law directed to column damages. Salt Meadows’ expert admitted that his

knowledge was limited to the columns supporting the outdoor decks of two units.16

Most of the damages claimed at trial, however, covered columns throughout the

complex that were different in location, structure, and function.17 Thus, the court

found these damages speculative and unsupported by the record.18 In addition, the

court concluded that Salt Meadows had “ample time” to develop evidence of damage

to the other columns during discovery but failed to do so and “vigorously” argued

against reopening discovery.19

        Turning to Salt Meadows’ motion for costs and interest, the court granted the

motion in part. The court awarded costs for several items, which are not contested

13
   Post-trial Decision, at *3.
14
   Id.
15
   Id.
16
   A1205.
17
   Post-trial Decision, at *4.
18
   Id. at *5.
19
   Id.
                                          5
on appeal, and agreed that Salt Meadows was entitled to post-judgment interest from

the date the judgment was entered. The parties submitted an agreed-upon form of

order, in which post-judgment interest was calculated from the verdict date instead

of the date of judgment. The court also awarded pre-judgment interest and chose

the starting date as the date when the leaks appeared rather than the date when Zonko

completed construction.

                                               II.

                                               A.

       The first issue on appeal is whether the Superior Court exceeded its discretion

when it ordered remittitur of the jury’s general damages award.20 Remittitur is

appropriate when the jury’s damages verdict “is so grossly disproportionate to the

injuries suffered so as to shock the Court’s conscience and sense of justice.” 21

       As noted earlier, the Superior Court ordered remittitur for two reasons – the

jury relied on inadmissible and speculative evidence when it included pandemic-

related inflationary costs, and the admissible evidence at trial did not support the

20
   In re Asbestos Litig., 223 A.3d 432, 434 (Del. 2019) (reviewing remittitur for abuse of
discretion).
21
   Maier v. Santucci, 697 A.2d 747, 749 (Del. 1997). See also Murphy v. Thomas, 801 A.2d 11,
2002 WL 1316242, at *1 (Del. June 13, 2002) (TABLE) (jury verdicts were excessive and shocked
the court’s conscience when: (1) the plaintiff’s economist used significantly magnified numbers
when opining about an injury; (2) the plaintiff’s counsel “used closing argument to try to inflame
the jury;” (3) the jury was not given an instruction on mitigation of damages “in a case where
mitigation was a significant issue;” and (4) some of the claimed damages lacked “good probative
evidence”).
                                                6
amount awarded. Salt Meadows argues on appeal that the evidence at trial was

sufficient to support the jury’s damage award. Salt Meadows claims that it presented

testimony from a Salt Meadows unit owner (also the president of the homeowners

association, or “HOA President”) and other witnesses that: damages were estimated

at $8,300,925.76 in 2019; it spent $2,405,527.26 on repairs through the trial date;

$6,210,306.04 remained to be spent on future repair work; at least $500,000 was

needed for additional painting and cleanup costs; costs had increased about 30%

since the 2019 estimate due to COVID-related inflation, and post-pandemic cost

increases would be even higher.

       Although the testimony Salt Meadows relies on was part of the trial record,

Salt Meadows has not addressed the sequence of events and the reasons the court

ordered remittitur.     First, Zonko’s attorney objected to the HOA President’s

testimony about the cost to complete repairs.22 After the court overruled Zonko’s

objection, the HOA President estimated that painting and cleanup would cost an

additional $500,000that was not covered by the 2019 repair estimate.23 Following

that, the HOA President testified that COVID-related inflation would increase costs

by 30%, though she admitted that this figure was speculative.24

22
   Post-trial Decision, at *2; A3317; A3333; A3458; A3493; A4926.
23
   A4916.
24
   A3458.
                                             7
       Next, Salt Meadows called the expert responsible for the 2019 estimate, who

testified – over Zonko’s objection – that his original estimate was imprecise and

outdated, and that a new estimate would be higher now because of increased costs

throughout the supply chain.25 The court once again overruled Zonko’s objection.26

When the expert – who possessed no expertise in finance or economics – was told

not to provide an exact inflation percentage to the jury, he disregarded that

instruction and testified to a fixed percentage – 30%.27 The court struck the answer

but found that “the 30% figure from [the HOA President’s] testimony was

reinforced” improperly by the expert’s testimony.28 According to the court, “the jury

improperly added 30% to the $8.3M and also improperly added the $500,000.00

claimed by [the HOA President] as an estimate for painting and repairs not included

in [the expert’s] estimate.”29

       Thus, the Salt Meadows witnesses ill-suited to testify about inflation and

increased costs improperly put before the jury cost estimates beyond the original

$8.3 million estimate.       The additional $3 million awarded, composed of the

speculative 30% inflationary increase ($2.49 million) offered by the HOA President

25
   A3633.
26
   A3644.
27
   A3637.
28
   Post-trial Decision, at *2.
29
   Id. The plaintiffs argue that inflationary costs are a matter of common sense. That might be
correct, but common sense is not a license for a witness with no apparent financial expertise to
speculate about the appropriate inflation factor in this case.
                                               8
and copied by the expert, and the speculative $500,000 of additional labor and

materials costs claimed by the HOA President, should not have been before the

jury.30

          The court also concluded that the jury’s verdict was excessive. It found that

Salt Meadows spent $2.4 million through trial and that it was “extremely unlikely

that additional repair work will cost more than $8.3M total.”31 The $8.3 million

estimate was “likely a worst-case scenario that assumed all the units were damaged

equally.”32 The court found it “unlikely Plaintiffs will need even the remaining

$5.9M to complete the repairs” and “[t]he extra $3M awarded by the jury, over the

already-high $8.3M figure, shocks the court’s conscience and sense of justice.”33

Given these circumstances, which are fully supported by the record, the Superior

Court did not exceed its discretion in reducing the damages to $8.3 million.34

                                               B.

          The second issue on appeal is whether the Superior Court erred when it

granted Zonko’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law for damages

30
   Id.
31
   Id. at *3.
32
   Id.
33
   Id.
34
   Zonko attempted to raise by cross-appeal that Salt Meadows should have been precluded from
testifying about general damages greater than the 2019 damage estimate. It did not file an opening
brief in support of its cross-appeal, and therefore waived any cross-appeal arguments. See Del.
Supr. Ct. R. 14(b)(vi)(A)(3); Bako Pathology LP v. Bakotic, 288 A.3d 252, 270 n.73 (Del. 2022)
(failure to raise issue in opening brief waived consideration of argument on cross-appeal).
                                                9
specific to the support columns. We review the Superior Court’s decision to grant

judgment as a matter of law de novo.35 “On appeal, we must determine ‘whether the

evidence and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, taken in the light

most favorable to the nonmoving party, raise an issue of material fact for

consideration by the jury.’”36

       In its post-trial decision, the Superior Court granted Zonko’s motion because

of a failure of proof. The expert testimony relevant to column damages related only

to two units, but Salt Meadows claimed damages for columns throughout the

condominium complex. In the Superior Court’s estimation, the trial testimony failed

to establish any logical connection between the damages from columns supporting

the two outside decks to damages to other columns in the complex. 37

       Salt Meadows argues on appeal that the court improperly substituted its

opinion for the jury’s findings of fact. It claims that the court erred because the

damages awarded for unexamined columns were supported by testimony about the

similar construction and damages of each unit, the expert’s examination of the rear

deck columns for two units, and the proof of costs for column repairs at one unit.

When the evidence at trial is viewed as a whole, Salt Meadows contends, there is

enough to sustain the jury’s award.

35
   Kardos v. Harrison, 980 A.2d 1014, 1016 (Del. 2009).
36
   Id. at 1016-17.
37
   Post-trial Decision, at *5.
                                             10
       Once again, Salt Meadows has not addressed the sequence of events or the

reasons the court granted the motion. As the court observed, Salt Meadows’ expert

testified that he discovered water damage on the rear deck of Unit 40149, and,

through a cursory evaluation, found potential water damage on the rear deck

columns of Unit 40154.38 It cost $72,019.82 to repair the Unit 40149 support

columns.39 Salt Meadows first sought $1,440,396.40 in column damages for all

decks.40

       Zonko raised this discrepancy in a motion in limine to preclude trial testimony

beyond the damages to Unit 40149 columns and renewed the motion during trial.41

The court denied the motion, believing that the testimony would be limited to

columns supporting the exterior decks of units, and discrepancies could be addressed

through cross-examination.42 Then, Salt Meadows shifted strategy at trial and

sought damages for not just columns supporting rear decks, but hundreds of other

columns throughout the complex.43

       The issue came to a head when Salt Meadows showed the jury a demonstrative

– never shown to the court or Zonko’s attorneys before trial – that asked for over $4

38
   Id. at *3.
39
   Id. at *4.
40
   The Superior Court noted that, “[a]t times, the parties refer to ‘twenty columns’ that need repair,
while in other places there are references to ‘hundreds’ of columns that need repair.” Id.
41
   A1158; A2881.
42
   Post-trial Decision, at *4.
43
   Id.
                                                 11
million in column repair damages.44     The court terminated the testimony and

instructed the jury to disregard the demonstrative because it believed that Salt

Meadows had misinformed the Court and Zonko’s counsel about the extent of its

column damages claim.45

        Before the case went to the jury, Zonko moved for judgment as a matter of

law on the column damages. The court denied the motion but said “it would

entertain post-trial argument on the matter and noted that [Salt Meadows] would

have difficulty meeting [its] burden.”46 Eventually, the court granted the motion

because “the evidence known to the court at the time of the ruling on the motion in

limine was quite different from what was presented at trial.”47 According to the

court, Salt Meadows “went far afield and elicited irrelevant and unfounded opinions

from their witnesses.”48 And “most of the 128 columns identified by [Salt Meadows’

expert] were only superficially similar. While they might have been roughly the

same width and length, their use in the construction was very different.”49 Thus,

according to the court, “there was no credible evidence that damage to one set of

columns supporting a deck would be found in every column in Salt Meadows.”50

44
   Id.
45
   See id.
46
   Id. at *5.
47
   Id. (italics added).
48
   Id.
49
   Id.
50
   Id.
                                        12
        We agree with the Superior Court that Salt Meadows was persistently evasive

about its column damages claims and presented an inconsistent and unsupported

case for condominium complex-wide column damages. Thus, the Superior Court

did not err as a matter of law by granting the motion.

                                           C.

        Turning to pre-judgment interest, when the statutory requirements are met,

Delaware law requires pre-judgment interest on tort-based damage awards:

        In any tort action for compensatory damages in the Superior
        Court . . . seeking monetary relief for bodily injuries, death or property
        damage, interest shall be added to any final judgment entered for
        damages awarded, . . . commencing from the date of injury, provided
        that prior to trial the plaintiff had extended to defendant a written
        settlement demand . . . in an amount less than the amount of damages
        upon which the judgment was entered.51

The Superior Court awarded pre-judgment interest starting in February 2016, “the

date when the damages were discovered.”52 The court reasoned that the statute

“could have used the term ‘tort’ instead of ‘injury’ if the legislature intended the date

of the tort to be the starting point for prejudgment interest.”53 The court also

recognized that the case was “unique,” and found it unfair to award “$21M in

prejudgment interest that accrued when [homeowners] were happily occupying and

using their units for nine years” and “[a]t least some of the current plaintiffs

51
   6 Del. C. § 2301(d).
52
   Post-trial Decision, at *8.
53
   Id.
                                           13
purchased their units several years after they were constructed.”54 According to the

court, those newer owners “should not be awarded prejudgment interest back before

they even owned the damaged units.”55 We review statutory interpretation questions

de novo.56

       The parties do not dispute that pre-judgment interest was proper.           Salt

Meadows raised tort claims and sought compensatory damages for property damage.

Salt Meadows also extended a written settlement demand for a minimum of thirty

days, the demand was less than the final judgment amount, and Zonko rejected it.

The parties disagree, however, over the date when pre-judgment interest began to

accrue.

       Salt Meadows contends that interest should accrue from April 11, 2007, the

date when Zonko finished construction of the condominium complex. As Salt

Meadows sees it, the “date of injury” is unambiguous statutory language supported

by dictionary definitions that means the time when its rights were violated. And Salt

Meadows argues that its rights were violated when Zonko negligently constructed

the condominium complex.

       Zonko responds that if the Delaware General Assembly intended the tort and

the injury to be the same, then § 2301(d) would state that interest is calculated at the

54
   Id.
55
   Id.
56
   Freeman v. X-Ray Assocs., P.A., 3 A.3d 224, 227 (Del. 2010).
                                              14
legal rate commencing from the date of the tort.57 As it argues, “[t]he meaning of

injury is hurt, damage, or loss sustained,” and § 2301(d) separates the tort action

from the injury or damages sustained.58 In common parlance, the injuries are a

consequence of the act, not the act itself.59

       We agree with the Superior Court that, in a property damage case, the date of

injury for pre-judgment interest purposes is the date that the plaintiff discovers the

damage and starts to spend money for repairs. A pre-judgment interest award serves

two purposes – to compensate a plaintiff for the lost use of its money, and to

encourage settlement by imposing a cost on defendants for refusing a reasonable

settlement offer less than the eventual damage award.60 Here, Zonko completed

construction of the condominium complex in 2007. But the leaks did not surface,

and Salt Meadows did not spend money on repairs, until 2016. Accruing pre-

judgment interest from the date money was spent to remedy the newly discovered

leaks compensates Salt Meadows for the time value of money spent on repairs. 61

57
   Answering Br. at 10.
58
   Id. at 12-13.
59
   Id.
60
   See Fortis Advisors, LLC v. Dematic Corp., 2023 WL 2967781, *1 (Del. Super. Apr. 13, 2023)
(“Prejudgment interest serves two purposes: (1) compensating the plaintiff for the lost use of its
money; and (2) divesting the defendant of any benefit it received by retaining the plaintiff’s money
during the case’s pendency.”); Rapposelli v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 988 A.2d 425, 427
(Del. 2010) (“The General Assembly enacted 6 Del. C. § 2301(d) to promote earlier settlement of
claims by encouraging parties to make fair offers sooner, with the effect of reducing court
congestion.”).
61
   The legislative history concerning failed amendments to the statute does not aid our analysis.
Neither failed amendment speaks to the meaning of “injury.” The failed amendments would have
permitted judges to decline to award pre-judgment interest or to award pre-judgment interest from
                                                15
       It also serves the statute’s salutary purpose of incentivizing settlement.

Having turned down a settlement offer less than the jury award, Zonko must pay pre-

judgment interest on the full award, even when Salt Meadows had spent only $2.4

million at the time of trial. That substantial cost – millions of dollars – could have

been avoided if the settlement offer had been accepted.

                                               D.

       Finally, Salt Meadows claims that the Superior Court improperly awarded

post-judgment interest from the date of the verdict instead of the date that judgment

was entered by the court. The mistake, however, was not by the court. The court

asked the parties to submit an agreed-upon form of judgment. The form submitted

to the court by Salt Meadows and Zonko stated: “The Plaintiffs are awarded post-

judgment interest at the rate in effect as of May 12, 2022, the date of the verdict.”62

The court entered the order as presented. Salt Meadows cannot complain that the

court erred by entering the form of order Salt Meadows approved for filing.63

a date other than the date of injury and would have allowed judges to consider the reasons behind
the delay and the settlement demand rejection. See Del. S.B. 310, Senate Amendment 2, 140th
Gen. Assemb. (Del. 2000), available at https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?legislationId=10987;
Del. S.B. 310, House Amendment 2, 140th Gen. Assemb. (Del. 2000), available at
https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?legislationId=10780. Nor are the car crash cases helpful. In
those cases, the tort and the injury occurred at the same time. See, e.g., Rapposelli, 998 A.2d at
429.
62
   Superior Court Docket No. 306 (Letter to Court and Proposed Form of Order).
63
   Id.
                                               16
                               III.

We affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

                                17