McGill Restoration, Inc. v. Lion Place Condominium Association

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for McGill Restoration in its breach-of-contract action against Lion Place Condominium Association for unpaid restoration work. The court held that Lion waived its right to a jury trial, that expert testimony was required to establish whether the contractor performed in an unworkmanlike manner, and that the trial court properly excluded or limited certain testimony and settlement-related evidence. The court also upheld the awards of damages, attorney fees, and prejudgment interest.

Holdings

1. A civil litigant waives the right to a jury trial under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1126(3) when the party's attorney consents in open court to a bench trial and the consent is entered on the court's journal. An attorney's authority to manage civil litigation includes the authority to waive a jury trial.
2. Evidence of statements and conduct made during compromise negotiations concerning a disputed claim is inadmissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-408, including when offered as an admission against interest or to impeach a witness with an inconsistent statement.
3. Ordinarily, expert testimony is required to establish that technical construction or restoration services were performed in an unworkmanlike manner because the applicable standard of care is outside ordinary knowledge. Lay evidence may suffice for failure to achieve a specific result only when the contract expressly guarantees that result, not when it merely requires workmanlike performance according to industry standards.
4. A trial court may exclude an expert opinion when the witness lacks sufficient knowledge of the work, applicable industry standards, relevant products, scope of the contract, or factual basis for causation; an opinion based solely on temporal correlation is unreliable.
5. Attorney fees may be awarded when a party persists in asserting a claim or defense after it knows or reasonably should know that it cannot prevail, and the amount of the award is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
6. Failure to specify the date from which prejudgment interest is claimed in the pleading does not preclude a statutory award when the opposing party had notice of the interest claim and an opportunity to be heard before judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Lion waived its statutory right to a jury trial through its counsel's oral consent in open court to a bench trial.
2. Whether the district court properly excluded a letter and testimony concerning compromise negotiations under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-408.
3. Whether the district court properly limited or excluded testimony from contractors designated as fact and expert witnesses.
4. Whether expert testimony was required to establish that McGill's technical restoration work was performed in an unworkmanlike manner.
5. Whether the district court properly excluded or disregarded Lion's proposed expert testimony for lack of foundation.
6. Whether the district court properly awarded attorney fees based on Lion's frivolous defense and counterclaims.
7. Whether the district court properly awarded prejudgment interest despite the complaint's failure to specify the date from which interest would be calculated.

Disposition

affirmed