HOWMAR MATERIALS, INC. v. PETERSON, 174 Or. App. 55 (2001)

23 P.3d 409

16-97-08036; A102527Oregon Court of Appeals.On respondents-cross-appellants’ Petition for Reconsideration filed November 30, 2000. Opinion filed November 15, 2000. 171 Or. App. 52, 14 P.3d 631.
Filed: May 2, 2001

Page 56

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County. Maurice Merten, Judge.

Meg E. Kieran and Timothy J. Harold for the petition.

George W. Kelly contra.

Before EDMONDS, Presiding Judge, and ARMSTRONG and KISTLER, Judges.

KISTLER, J.

Petition for reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

Page 57

KISTLER, J.

Plaintiffs have petitioned for reconsideration of our decision i Howmar Materials, Inc. v. Peterson, 171 Or. App. 52, 14 P.3d 631 (2000). They argue, among other things, that we erred in concluding that the jury could have awarded defendant separate damages on his counterclaims for fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. We allow the petition for reconsideration and adhere to our decision as modified.

In our previous opinion, we held that, in light of Building Structures, Inc. v. Young, 328 Or. 100, 968 P.2d 1287 (1998), plaintiffs’ failure to ask for clarification of the verdict barred them from claiming that the jury’s damage awards on their fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment claims were duplicative. See Howmar Materials, Inc., 171 Or. App. at 60-61. We held alternatively that, under Hampton Tree Farms, Inc. v. Jewett, 158 Or. App. 376, 386-88, 947 P.2d 738, rev den 329 Or. 61 (1999), the two damage awards were not necessarily duplicative. See Howmar Materials, Inc., 171 Or. App. at 61-62. We explained that it was possible for the jury to have found that plaintiffs misrepresented the condition of the equipment they sold defendant and that plaintiffs also concealed material facts regarding the embankments on the property they sold defendant. Id. It followed, we concluded, that the evidence permitted the jury to award defendant separate damages on each counterclaim. Id. Because the trial court should have given full effect to the jury’s verdict under either Building Structures or Hampton Tree Farms, it was not necessary for us to decide whether our reasoning in Hampton Tree Farms was consistent with the court’s reasoning i Building Structures. Id.

In their petition for reconsideration, plaintiffs argue that our alternative holding under Hampton Tree Farms rests on an incorrect premise. They contend that, because defendant had not adequately alleged that plaintiffs had fraudulently misrepresented the condition of the equipment, we erred in saying that the losses related to the defective equipment could have formed the basis for the jury’s damage award on the fraudulent misrepresentation counterclaim.

Page 58

Although defendant argues otherwise, we agree with plaintiffs that defendant’s pleadings were not sufficient to make plaintiffs’ statements concerning the equipment part of his fraudulent misrepresentation counterclaim.[1] We continue to adhere, however, to both the rationale set out in our previous decision and the result.

As noted above, Building Structures establishes that, if the jury’s verdict was ambiguous or even internally inconsistent, plaintiffs’ remedy for that defect was to ask for clarification from the jury.[2] See Building Structures, 328 Or. at 110. If plaintiffs believed that the verdict was defective because it was unclear whether the jury intended that the two damage awards should be added together or treated as duplicative, their remedy was to ask for clarification from the jury. See id. Plaintiffs failed to do so, instead opting to make a legal argument to the trial court while allowing the jury to be dismissed. Plaintiffs waived their opportunity to ask the jury to clarify whether the two damages awards were intended to be separate or duplicative. Id.; see also Boers v. Payline Systems, Inc., 141 Or. App. 238, 247, 918 P.2d 432
(1996).

We explained alternatively that, under Hampton Tree Farms, the trial court could refuse to give effect to the jury’s two damage awards only if a court could say, as a matter of law, that the damages for the two claims were necessarily duplicative. We adhere to that understanding o Hampton Tree Farms. Put in the context of this case, the question unde Hampton Tree Farms is whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to return damage

Page 59

awards on defendants’ two counterclaims totaling $256,525.94. On that point, plaintiffs have not argued, and we do not find, that the total amount of damages awarded by the jury was more than the evidence would allow.[3] Defendant sought over $300,000 on each fraud counterclaim, and at the conclusion of the case, the jury was instructed that the damages were not to exceed $329,000 on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim and $320,000 on the fraudulent concealment claim. Plaintiffs do not suggest that the instructions were erroneous or that the total amount that jury the awarded on the two counterclaims was in excess of what the evidence permitted the jury to award.

We recognized in Kilgore v. People’s Savings Loan Assn., 107 Or. App. 743, 753, 814 P.2d 163 (1991), rev dismissed 313 Or. 300
(1992), that a jury could reasonably allocate damages for the same loss between two claims for relief. It could reasonably have done so here too. To the extent that there is a question whether that is what the jury intended to do, under Building Structures, plaintiffs’ only remedy for that defect was to ask the jury to clarify its verdict.[4]
They did not do so.

Page 60

We have considered plaintiffs’ other bases for reconsideration and deny them without discussion.

Petition for reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

Page 61