When Courts Overrule Juries – Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

In its recent order in Colleen Ann Colton & a. v. Robert Jacobs (February 21, 2024), the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed a trial judge’s decision to vacate a $60,000 jury verdict award.  The case involved a negligent misrepresentation claim in the context of alleged construction work.  The order also provides a noteworthy examination of the evidentiary standards required to establish damages in the context of verbal agreements and personal labor contributions.

Background

The plaintiffs, Colleen Ann Colton and Omar Brissett, entered into an oral agreement with the defendant, Robert Jacobs, regarding the construction of a garage on a property owned by Jacobs, which Colton was renting. The agreement stipulated that Jacobs would fund the materials for the garage if the plaintiffs provided the labor. Furthermore, Jacobs promised to sell the property to the plaintiffs within twenty-four months of the garage's completion and to refrain from selling it to others during that period. This arrangement was purportedly to allow the plaintiffs time to secure financing for the property purchase.

The plaintiffs constructed the garage between November 2019 and early 2021; however, relations soured when Jacobs expressed his intent to sell the property in May 2021 before the agreed period had lapsed.

Trial Court Proceedings

The plaintiffs sued Jacobs in superior court on several grounds, including negligent misrepresentation, successfully arguing Jacobs never intended to fulfill his promise at the time he made the promise. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $60,000 in damages. Jacobs challenged the decision by filing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.  In granting the motion, the judge found the plaintiffs failed to prove any recoverable pecuniary damages.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Ruling

The Supreme Court focused on the plaintiffs' inability to present sufficient evidence of pecuniary loss directly attributable to Jacobs' misrepresentation. Key to the court's decision was the absence of concrete evidence regarding the value of the plaintiffs' labor in constructing the garage. The plaintiffs did not keep records of their hours worked or establish an hourly rate for their labor, which they themselves admitted were estimates and guesses.

Takeaway

To prove damages in a negligent misrepresentation claim, a party needs to establish a misrepresentation occurred and that the misrepresentation resulted in a specific, quantifiable pecuniary loss. In this case, the plaintiffs' failure to provide evidence of their labor's value or any other direct financial loss as a result of the defendant's actions was a critical shortfall.

The ruling also serves as a cautionary tale for parties entering into verbal agreements involving personal labor and future promises.  The party seeking to be paid should maintain detailed records and establishing clear, quantifiable metrics for contributions to a project.

You can contact Alfano Law by calling (603) 856-8411 or at this link.