Search Results

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joseph S. Rechlicz, et al. v. Price Point Builders, LLC
No. 25A-PL-1071

Interlocutory appeal from the Lake Superior Court, Judge John M. Sedia. Affirms the trial court’s order compelling arbitration of the Rechliczes’ claims against Price Point Builders arising from alleged construction defects in their home. Holds the limited warranty agreement between the parties contains a mandatory arbitration provision requiring that breach-of-warranty claims “shall be resolved by arbitration,” and that the homeowners’ claims fall within that agreement rather than the construction agreement’s optional arbitration clause. Further holds Price Point did not waive its right to compel arbitration by participating in litigation for 14 months before filing its motion, where the case had made little substantive progress – in part due to a clerical error with the court’s electronic filing system – no dispositive rulings on the merits had occurred, and Indiana law does not require a showing of prejudice to establish waiver. Concludes the trial court properly denied the motion to correct error and stayed proceedings pending arbitration. Appellants’ attorneys: Megan L. Craig; John R. Craig. Appellee’s attorneys: Nathan D. Vis; Edward R. Ricci Jr.

This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Sayre and Sam the Concrete Man v. Lee Trost
No. 25A-PL-1007

Civil. Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court, Judge Darren J. Murphy. Affirms the trial court’s judgment in favor of Lee Trost following a bench trial on claims arising from the installation of a concrete patio. Holds the evidence supports the trial court’s findings that the contractors breached the parties’ agreement and performed deficient and negligent work, including pouring mismatched concrete, incorrectly re-pouring sections, failing to complete the project within the contemplated timeframe, and leaving multiple defects and hazards unresolved nearly two years after the contract was executed. Further holds the trial court did not err in awarding $19,961 in damages, including return of the $7,425 deposit, $200 for drain and fence repairs, $836 for patio removal and $11,500 for replacement, where the court found the patio must be torn out and replaced, the existing work devalued the property, and the damages were within the scope of the evidence and necessary to compensate Trost for the loss of the benefit of the bargain. Judge Felix dissented, concluding the trial court erred by entering judgment on Trost’s negligence claim because the contractors’ duty arose solely from the contract and there was no invasion of interests beyond a breach of contractual obligations. He also concluded the trial court improperly awarded the full replacement cost of the patio, reasoning that while Trost was entitled to recover his deposit, repair costs and removal expenses, paying for an entirely new patio placed him in a better position than he would have occupied absent the breach. He would affirm the breach-of-contract finding, reverse the negligence judgment, and remand for a redetermination of damages, including any consequential damages proven with reasonable certainty. Appellant’s attorney: Jeffrey K. Eicher. Appellee’s attorney: Julie A. Camden. This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.