 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alcoa11/17/2003
1. Introduction
Plaintiff Alcoa, Inc., who manufactured and sold aluminum products, contracted with defendant California Cartage Company, Inc., for warehousing services. After a fire at defendant's warehouse ruined plaintiff's goods, plaintiff sued defendant for damages. The jury found defendant negligent and the court awarded plaintiff $1,000,000, the contractual limit on defendant's liability. Plaintiff then filed motions for prejudgment interest and attorney fees. Based on the limitation of liability provision, the trial court denied plaintiff's motions. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for prejudgment interest and attorney fees.
In affirming the trial court's judgment, we conclude that a court may not award prejudgment interest in addition to the other elements of damages in excess of the contractual limit. We also conclude that the provision referring to attorney fees was an indemnification clause pertaining to third party claims, rather than an attorney fees provision allowing an award of fees in an action between the parties under the contract.
2. Factual and Procedural History
On July 17, 1995, plaintiff, who was in the business of manufacturing and selling aluminum alloy sheeting products or "coils," entered into a contract with defendant for certain warehousing services. On December 16, 1996, there was a fire at defendant's warehouse, where defendant stored plaintiff's aluminum coils. The fire or smoke damaged the coils.
On December 10, 1999, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that defendant's negligence caused approximately $1,621,030 in damages to plaintiff's property. At trial, however, plaintiff presented evidence that it had submitted to defendant several claims totaling $1,916,000. The claims primarily reflected the difference between the invoice prices and the scrap values for the damaged coils.
Based on the limitation of liability provision of the warehousing contract, the parties stipulated that the total damages would not exceed $1,000,000. The jury found that defendant's negligence caused plaintiff $1,916,000 in property damage. Based on the parties' stipulation, the trial court reduced the amount to $1,000,000.
On August 21, 2002, plaintiff filed two separate motions: one for attorney fees and costs in the amount of $511,322, and another for prejudgment interest in the amount of $769,445. Relying again on the limitation of liability provision, the trial court denied both motions.
The court entered judgment for $1,000,000 plus $74,535.16 in costs and post-judgment interest.
In appealing from the judgment, plaintiff challenges only the trial court's denial of its motions for attorney fees and prejudgment interest.
3. Appealability
As a preliminary matter, defendant claims that plaintiff is barred from appealing the court's judgment because it voluntarily accepted defendant's payment of $1,000,000 plus the amount for postjudgment interest. Defendant's payment did not include the amount awarded for costs because, at the time defendant issued its checks, it had not yet received notice of the cost award.
In support of its claim, defendant relies on Schubert v. Reich. In Schubert, the court observed that, " t is the settled rule that the voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a judgment or order is a bar to the prosecution of an appeal therefrom."
Defendant's claim lacks merit. We initially note that defendant's claim is procedurally defective because defendant failed to submit a formal, written motion for dismissal. Defendant's claim is also substantive
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|