Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-2532 Civil (2) STRICKLAND BROTHERS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : : NO. 06-2532 CIVIL TERM : v. : : CRAIG SEIG, : CIVIL ACTION – LAW Defendant : WESTFIELD INSURANCE : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRAIG SEIG, : Plaintiff : NO. 08-0423 CIVIL TERM : v. : : STRICKLAND BROTHERS : CIVIL ACTION – LAW CONSTRUCTION, LLC, : Defendant IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 Ebert, Jr., J., May 27, 2010 – Strickland Brothers Construction, LLC, (hereinafter SBC), has filed this timely appeal from our Order of Court dated April 1, 2010. SBC filed a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal on May 10, 2010.Basically, SBC claims that the Court committed error in failing to award them compensation for the roof trusses they paid for which were damaged and replaced by Westfield Insurance Company (hereinafter Westfield). In essence, they maintain that they are owed $10,890.04 and that to not award them this sum constitutes unjust enrichment of the homeowner, Craig Seig (hereinafter Seig). This Court previously filed a 23 page opinion on April 2, 2010, which addresses the legal issues presented in this case at length. This opinion is filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) to supplement the prior April 1, 2010 opinion and more specifically addresses the specific issue raised in SBC’s Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. Supplemental Facts Defendant maintains that there is “uncontradicted evidence” that Strickland Brothers Construction, LLC, paid $10,890.04 to purchase a set of roof trusses for use in the construction of Craig Seig’s home. This sum is not included in the Stipulation of Facts submitted by the parties (Court Exhibit No. 1), nor is it the amount testified to by Morris Jeffrey Strickland (hereinafter J. Strickland) at trial. J. Strickland testified that the amount paid to York P-B Truss, Inc., the company that provided the trusses, was $9,758.16. (N.T. Day 1, p. 31). An examination of the coversheet of Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3 indicates that York P-B Truss, Inc. was paid $9,758.16, but the actual invoice from York P-B Truss, Inc., included in Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3 indicates a grand total of $9,578.16. Thus, it appears that the numbers 7 and 5 were transposed on the coversheet. Additionally, by way of explanation, SBC may have included the cost for the crane service and box truss spacers used to set the trusses in their total amount requested. Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3 does have an invoice from Clouse Services Inc., dated 1/24/06 in the amount of $866.55 for crane services on January 20, 2009, and box truss spacers. This invoice is marked “not paid yet” as is the invoice from York P-B Truss, Inc. However, adding this sum to the actual cost of the trusses still comes to only $10,444.71. In any regard, given the fact that this Court finds that SBC is not entitled to an award for unjust enrichment for the trusses, the discrepancy in the amount requested is irrelevant. Seig contracted with Westfield to provide property damage coverage during the construction of his home. Accordingly, as a result of SBC’s negligence in improperly setting and bracing the roof trusses they collapsed. Westfield was obligated to pay Seig for the damage 2 and became subrogee to any claim Seig had against SBC. Equally compelling is the fact that SBC had its own insurance policy. According to the testimony of J. Strickland, SBC never filed a claim for the damaged trusses with its own insurer. (N.T. Day 1, p. 62, Defense Exhibit 2) While SBC did pay for the first set of trusses and utilize labor to set them, neither Seig nor Westfield received any benefit as a result of these expenditures. Indeed because of SBC’s negligent work, the trusses collapsed and were damaged and rendered unusable. They were removed from the home and piled on the building lot until they were taken from the lot by Fulmer Construction Services, Inc. as part of the insurance claim. This Court finds as fact that Seig was not “unjustly” enriched. DISCUSSION This Court has awarded SBC the sum of $12,907.77 for the satisfactory work it preformed in framing Seig’s house. SBC is not entitled to a claim of unjust enrichment for the money and labor it expended on the first set of trusses. Westfield paid Seig for the damages caused by SBC under a separate contract of insurance as a result of SBC’s negligent installation of Seig’s home’s roof truss system. Stating the elements of unjust enrichment in terms of this case, SBC must demonstrate that (1) a benefit was conferred upon Seig by SBC, (2) appreciation of the benefit by Seig, and (3) acceptance and retention of the benefit by Seig under such circumstances that would be inequitable for Seig to retain the benefit without payment of value. Stoeckinger v. Presidential Financial Corp., 948 A.2d 828 (Pa. Super. 2008). Whether the unjust enrichment doctrine applies depends on the unique factual circumstances of each case. The most significant element of the doctrine of unjust enrichment is whether the enrichment of the Defendant is unjust. Id. In this case, SBC’s purchase of the first set of trusses and its subsequent negligent destruction of those trusses conferred no benefit upon Seig. Obviously, Seig could not 3 appreciate any benefit because none was conferred. What Seig saw as a result of SBC’s negligent work was a pile of damaged trusses which were of absolutely no value to him. This Court finds that under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, the equities in this unique case lie with homeowner Seig. Seig was paid by his insurance company, Westfield, for the damages caused by SBC’s negligent work. SBC obviously owes Westfield for the damages it paid to Seig as subrogee of the claim. If SBC was entitled to anything it was the pile of damaged trusses that remained on Seig’s lot after they were removed from the house. SBC obviously did nothing to claim them. Interestingly, J. Strickland admitted that he was insured by Erie Insurance Company and that he did not submit his own claim on behalf of SBC for the damaged trusses. (N.T. Day 1, p. 62, Defense Exhibit 2). Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine under Pennsylvania Law. In re: Reading Broadcasting, Inc., 390 B.R. 532 (E.D. Pa. 2008). In this case, Seig was definitely not unjustly enriched by anything that SBC did with regard to the roof truss construction. If anything, Seig was actually harmed by the emotional trauma of seeing his new home damaged and the delay in completion caused by SBC’s negligent and un-workmanlike performance. Accordingly, SBC’s claim for unjust enrichment is denied. By the Court, __________________________ M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Mark W. Allshouse, Esq. Attorney for Strickland Brothers Construction, LLC Paul M. Schofield, Jr., Esq. Paul F. D’Emilio, Esq. Attorneys for Westfield Insurance Company as Subrogee of Craig Seig John Pietrzak, Esquire Attorney for Craig Seig 4