 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Burlington Northern Railroad Company v. General Projection Systems. Inc.5/2/2000
of credit for settlement proceeds, seeking to have any tort damages awarded to GPS reduced by the $300,000 GPS received from the WJHW settlement.
After a lengthy trial, the trial court submitted issues to the jury concerning GPS's breach of contract claim, Burlington's breach of contract counterclaim, and GPS's claims for conversion and negligent handling of its property. The jury found that Burlington breached the contract and that GPS did not breach the contract, and awarded GPS $980,000 for Burlington's breach. The jury also found Burlington converted GPS's property and negligently handled GPS's property after termination of the contract; the jury further awarded GPS $5,000,000 actual damages for Burlington's conversion and negligence. The jury later awarded GPS punitive damages of $7,500,000.
Burlington filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In its opposition to Burlington's motion, GPS acknowledged that its pleadings limited its contract damages to $925,000 and that its tort damages were $64,000, for a total of $989,000 in actual damages. The trial court rendered judgment awarding GPS actual damages of $989,000, punitive damages of $7,500,000, prejudgment interest, postjudgment interest, and attorney's fees. The trial court also rendered judgment that Burlington take nothing on its claims against GPS and Amwest. The judgment did not credit Burlington with any amount of the funds GPS received in its settlement with WJHW. Burlington moved for new trial, but the trial court denied the motion. This appeal followed.
Breach of Contract
In its first point of error, Burlington contends the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and its motion for new trial because the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to prove Burlington breached the contract. Burlington further contends in point one it proved as a matter of law that GPS breached the contract, and that the jury's verdict that GPS did not breach the contract is against the great weight of the evidence. In its ninth point of error, Burlington contends the trial court erred in denying its motion for new trial as to Amwest, surety on GPS's performance bond.
The rule is well established that, in reviewing "no evidence" points, we must consider only the evidence and inferences supporting the jury's findings and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences. Redman Homes, Inc. v. Ivy, 920 S.W.2d 664, 667 (Tex. 1996). In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we examine all the evidence and will set aside a verdict only if the evidence is so weak or the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
We begin by considering whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury's finding that GPS did not breach the contract. Question number 11 in the charge asked, "Did General Projection Systems breach the contract with Burlington Northern Railroad?" The jury answered no. Burlington asserts as a matter of law that GPS breached the contract by failing to complete its work on time. It is undisputed that GPS did not complete installation of the audiovisual equipment by March 1, 1995. GPS was still working on the project when Burlington terminated the contract on March 23, 1995.
The contract between GPS and Burlington contained a provision by which GPS could obtain an extension of time to complete the work. However, there is no evidence that GPS made a timely request for an extension of time, and GPS does not assert that it did. Instead, GPS asserts its time for completing the project had no
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|