Wilson v. Klabe Construction Co., et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY SHIRLEY WILSON v. KLABE CONSTRUCTION CO. and KEVIN S. KLABE Defen dants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 03A-09-001-JOH Submitted: May 19, 2004 Decided: July 29, 2004 MEMORANDUM OPINION Upon Appeal from the Cou rt of Common Pleas AFFIRMED Shirley Wilson, 819 Woodsdale Road, Wilmington, D elaware, 19809, Pro-se Paul A. Bradley, Esquire, of McCar ter & English, L LP, Wilmington, D elaware, attorney for the d efendants HERL IHY, Judge Appellant Shirley Wilson appeals the decision of the Court of Common P leas which granted Appellees Klabe Construction C ompany and Kevin Klabe s (jointly the defendants) motion fo r dir ected ver dict. Wilson s ued the de fendants for breach of contract claiming that they did not com plete hom e repa ir wo rk in a w orkm anlike ma nner a nd in accordance with industry standards. Wilson had originally sued the defendants in Justice of the Peace court. After a trial, that court dismissed Wilson s claim. She then appealed to the Co urt of C omm on Plea s wher e a trial de novo was conducted. The Court of Com mon Pleas granted the directed verdict concluding that Wilson d id not present evidence of either liability or damages during her case-in-chief. This Court finds that the trial court did not commit any errors of law during the trial and that its decision is supported by substantial evidence. A ccordingly, the decision is AFFIRMED. Facts On September 5, 2000, W ilson and Klabe Construction Company, a cor poration, entered into a time and materials contract for work to be done at Wilson s rental prop erty located at 311 Beverly Place. T he scope of the work involved removing and replacing wood w indowsills r otted due to term ite damag e, rem oving old caulk and recaulking all the wind ows in the house, repla cing a rotted screen door, and r eplacing certain beams a nd floor joists located in the hom e s basem ent. Wilson tendered a $2,500 deposit to Klabe Construction on September 11, 2000. It completed the work in approximately six weeks and completed time and material 1 summaries each day documenting the hours and materials used each day. W ilson supervised much of the work that was don e by Klabe Construction em ployees. Specifically, Wilson directed which wood would be used to replace the rotted wood in the home. John Morgan, the Klabe Construction employee who actually performed the carpentry wor k, testified at tria l that Wilson had him use wood milled to match the rest of the wood in the home despite his advice that using pressure-treated would deter termites. 1 Morgan testified that he replaced a screen door with a pressure-treated wood door, but Wilson asked him to remove it and install a door she had in her basement which, according to Morgan, was rotted wood. Morgan also testified that he informed Wilson that there was term ite damag e to windo wsills in the basement and that he recommended that the sills be replaced with pressure-treated wood. 2 However, she refused the recommendation. On cross-examination, Mor gan testified that all the work at the job site was done according to Wilson s instructions and in a workmanlike manner complying with industry standards. 3 Thomas Laskey, Jr ., a carpenter who w as hired by Wilso n to rep air cer tain things due to Klabe Construction s allegedly deficient work, testified that he informed Wilson nothing needed to be fixed and that the previous carpentry work was done in a 1 Tr. Court of Common Pleas Tr ial at 31-32. 2 Id. 3 Id. at 34. 2 workmanlike manner. 4 On cross-examination, Laskey testified that there were no deficiencies in the carpentry work completed by Klabe Construction. 5 Wilson called William Krauss, who ha d hired Klabe C onstru ction to con vert a garage attached to his home. H e testified that he was completely satisfied with the work completed by Klabe Construction and that it ranked as excellent construction company. 6 Wilson admits tha t she did no t hire Klab e Con struction to investigate or exte rmin ate termites at her property. 7 She hire d it on a time and mater ials basis to r epair c ertain specified areas in the home. Klabe Construction is not licensed nor in the business of term ite extermination. Wilson stated that the home had been treated for termites by another company prior to the carpentry work done by Klabe Construction. 8 On July 17, 2003, a trial was held in the Court of Common Pleas. At the close of Wilson s case-in-chief, the defendants moved for a directed verdic t. T he trial co urt held that there was no evidence in the record to find Kevin Klabe individually liable for Klabe Construction Company s alleged breach of contra ct. The tr ial cour t further held that there 4 Id. at 63. 5 Id. at 70. 6 Id. at 75. 7 Tr. Court of Common Pleas Tr ial at 54. 8 Id. 3 is absolutely no substantial evidence to support a v erdict in favor of [Wilson] 9 because Wilson had not presented any evidence of Klabe Construction s liability or damages required for a breach of contract claim. Standard of Review When this Court reviews an appeal from the Court of Common P leas, the decision is reviewed as the Supreme Court would consider an appeal. 10 The applicable standard of review for an appeal from the Court of Com mon P leas to this C ourt is tw o-fold. Fir st, errors of law are reviewed de novo. 11 Second, this Court is bound by findings of fact made by the Court of Common Pleas which are supported by the record and which are the product of a logical and deductive process. 12 If substantial evidence exists for a finding of fact, this Court must accept that ruling, as it must not make its own factual conclusions, weigh evidence, or m ake cr edibility determinations. 13 Substantial evidence means s uch re levant evid ence as a r easonab le mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 14 Substantial evidence is more than 9 Wilson v. Klabe Construction Co. , 2003 Del. WL 22931390 (Del. CCP). 10 Fiori v. State, 2004 WL 1284205, at *1 (Del. Super.). 11 Downs v. State, 570 A. 2d 1142, 1144 (Del. 1990). 12 Trader v. Wilson, 2002 WL 499888, at *2 (Del. Super.); Downs, 570 A. 2d at 1144. 13 Johnson v. Chrysler, 213 A. 2d 64 (Del. 1965). 14 Olney v. Cooch, 425 A. 2d 610, 614 (Del. 1981). 4 a scintilla but less than a preponderance. 15 Discussion Shirley Wilson entered into a contract with Klabe Construction Company on a time and materials basis for work at her rental property at 311 Beverly Place. She claims that term ite damage was found by Klabe Construction while they were completing the carpentry work at her rental property, but Klabe Construction did not inform her ab out the ter mite damage. Wilson c laims she d id not discov er the te rmite damage until after the work was completed. She stated du ring the trial that the home had been treated for termites by another company pr ior to the carpentry w ork done by Klabe C onstruction. 16 Wilson further testified that she filed this laws uit against Klab e Con struction seeking to h old it liable even thou gh she ad mits that she should have filed a lawsuit against the pest control company that treated her property for term ites prior to the carpentry work by Klabe Construction. She argues that she lost her cause of action against the pest control company because of Klabe Construction s failure to control the termite problem that it discovered while working at her property. Wilson does admit, however, that she did not hire Klabe Construction to exterminate termites on her property. 15 Id. 16 Tr. Court of Common Pleas Tr ial at 54. 5 Ordinarily, an individual corporate officer is not liable for the business a cts of a corporation. 17 Under established Delaware law, courts will pierce the corporate veil where certain facts indicate that the corporate entity has been or is being used by those in control of it to perpetuate fraud. 18 The D elawar e Cou rt of C hancer y, howev er, has sole jurisdiction over a ctions to pier ce the cor porate veil. 19 This C ourt an d the tria l court, therefore, lack jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil in this case. 20 The second, and primar y, issue to address is whether Klabe Construction breached the September 5, 2000 time and materials contract. D elaware law recognizes the longstanding tradition that parties to a contract should receive the benefit of their bargains. 21 Damages for breac h of contr act will be in a n amou nt sufficient to r eturn th e party damages to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. 22 The law is concisely stated in J.J. White, Inc. v. M etropolitan Merchandise Mart, Inc. 23 : 17 Sonne v. Sacks, 1979 Del. Ch. LEXIS 455 (Del. Ch.). 18 Petroleum, Inc. v. Continental Oil Co. , 231 A. 2d 450 (Del. Ch. 1967). 19 Sonne v. Sacks, 314 A. 2d 194, 197 (Del. 1973). 20 John Julian Construction Co. v. Monarch Builders, Inc. , 324 A. 2d 208, 210 n. 1 (Del. 1974). 21 SLMSOFT.COM v. Cross County Bank, 2003 Del. Super. LEXIS 112 (Del. Super.). 22 Delaware Limousine Services, Inc. v. Royal Limousine Service, Inc., 1991 Del. Super. LEXIS 130 (Del. Super.). 23 107 A.2d 892 (Del. Super. Ct. 1954). 6 One who is injured by the breach of contract is entitled to compensation for the injury received. The compensation should be such as w ill place him in the same position that he would have been in if the contract had been performed. The measure of damages is the loss actually sustained as a resu lt of the br each of co ntract. 24 The Cour t conclude s that Klabe C onstru ction did no t breac h its contr act with Wilson. The ev idence in the record overwhelmingly shows that Klabe Construction completed the work in accordance with Wilson s instructions and in a workmanlike manner complying to industry standards. Wilson s own fact witnesses at trial testified as to this. For example, John M o rgan testified that he followed Wilson s instructions of replacing wood throughout the home with rotted wood that she had supplied even though he recommended using pressure-treated wood to prevent termite infestation. M organ and Thomas Laskey, Jr. both testified that the carpentry work performed by Klabe Cons truction was done in a workmanlike manner and in accordance with industry standards. William Krauss testified that he was completely satisfied with the work Klabe Construction did for him. W ilson presented no evidence of any deficiencies in Klabe Construction s work on her home. In addition to not presenting evidence of liability, W ilson did not present evidence that she suffered damages as a result of the carpentry work done by Klabe Construction. The basis of W ilson s brea ch of con tract actio n is flawed. She argues that Klabe Construction found termite damage, but it did not relay this information to her. Because 24 Id. at 894. 7 Klabe Construction did not inform her of the termites, she claims that she lost the ability to bring a suit against the pest contr ol comp any that tr eated her prop erty prior to the work done by Klabe Construction. Wilson conceded at trial that the proper lawsuit should have been filed against the pest contro l compa ny. She is cor rect tha t the pro per su it is against the pest control company. She is incorrect, however, regarding Klabe Construction not informing her about the termite damage. John Morgan testified that he told her about the termites. 25 Fur therm ore, Wilson a dmits that she did not hire Klabe C onstru ction to investigate or exterminate termites at her property. This Court deter mines that the trial c ourt co mmitted no err ors of la w and th at its findings of fact are supported by the record and are the product of a logical and orderly deductive process. 26 Conclusion For the reasons stated her ein, the judgem ent of the C ourt o f Com mon P leas is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. _______________________________________ J. 25 Tr. Court of Common Pleas Tr ial at 31-32. 26 Downs, 570 A. 2d at 1144. 8
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
