Phoenix Controls v. Eisenmann Corp.

Phoenix Controls, Inc. and Emergent Financial Corp.1 appeal a judgment entered on Phoenix's claims against Eisenmann Corporation, which cross-appeals the judgment. A jury awarded Phoenix $946,825 in damages for Eisenmann's intentional misrepresentation regarding payment for work Phoenix performed on a construction project for which Eisenmann served as the prime contractor. Eisenmann contends that the trial court erred in denying its motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for dismissal of certain claims, for changed answers or directed verdicts on certain questions, or for a new trial. Eisenmann also cites portions of the court's award of costs and fees as erroneous. Phoenix challenges the trial court's rulings regarding the parties' entitlements to contractual attorneys' fees and the court's denial of additional damages on its claim of promissory estoppel.

2. We conclude that, with one exception, the trial court did not err in denying Eisenmann's post-verdict motions. In light of the jury's finding that the parties had entered into a modified agreement, the court should have dismissed Phoenix's promissory estoppel claim, but the dismissal of that claim does not affect the appealed and cross-appealed judgment. We also affirm the trial court's rulings regarding attorneys' fees and costs.

Background

3. The present litigation encompassed several claims and a counter-claim that were tried to a jury over five days. The litigation arises out of a construction project undertaken by General Motors Corporation (GM) in Janesville. GM retained Eisenmann as its prime contractor to design and construct a large assembly line paint application facility. Eisenmann, in turn, retained Phoenix as a subcontractor to produce control panels and install software to operate automated materials handling systems in the new facility. This contract, which the parties refer to as the "base contract," required Phoenix to perform certain specified work for a fixed price of $800,000.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

¶51. An appeal of a final order or judgment brings before this court "all prior nonfinal judgments, orders and rulings adverse to the appellant." Wis. Stat. Rule 809.10(4). Accordingly, we reverse the "Order Regarding Post-Trial Motions," entered May 3, 2000, insofar as it denied Eisenmann's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict seeking dismissal of Phoenix's promissory estoppel claim. We affirm the order in all other respects. Because our dismissal of the promissory estoppel claim does not affect the appealed and cross-appealed judgment, we affirm the judgment entered in favor of Phoenix for $957,196.73.

Unavailable

Unavailable

C.L.