Ludvik Electric Company v. Vanderlande Industries, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah granted Vanderlande Industries, Inc.’s motion for partial summary judgment on damages concerning Ludvik Electric Company’s negligent misrepresentation claim. The court held that the parties’ subcontract barred recovery of the claimed delay and inefficiency damages and that Ludvik provided no evidence establishing the value of any other damages allegedly lost through reliance on Vanderlande’s representations. Judgment was entered for Vanderlande on the remaining claim, and the action was dismissed with prejudice.

Holdings

1. The court declined to address the argument that the negligent misrepresentation concerned a legal opinion because that argument challenged liability, was first raised in a reply during the prior liability phase, and Vanderlande had not obtained leave to file another liability motion.
2. The parties' subcontract barred Ludvik from recovering the inefficiency and delay damages asserted as damages for negligent misrepresentation.
3. The contract's damages waiver was relevant because Ludvik's negligent-misrepresentation damages were necessarily measured by the value of direct inefficiency or delay claims that Ludvik could allegedly have pursued or retained, and those claims were contractually unavailable.
4. Ludvik failed to establish damages as a matter of law, and without damages its negligent-misrepresentation claim could not succeed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Vanderlande could obtain summary judgment on damages for Ludvik's negligent-misrepresentation claim where the claimed damages consisted of inefficiency and delay damages barred by the parties' subcontract.
2. Whether the PSA's modification of the ISA's delay provision and its flow-down clause displaced the separate broad waiver of inefficiency and delay damages in ISA § 4.3.
3. Whether the court should consider Vanderlande's argument that the alleged misrepresentation was an opinion about the legal effect of contracts when that argument challenged liability and had not been timely raised in the liability phase.
4. Whether Ludvik presented evidence establishing the value of any claim it allegedly lost or could have pursued against Vanderlande.

Disposition

dismissed