Alexander Contracting Company,, et al v. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-13668

Date Filed: 12/05/2016

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13668
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cv-00449-CDL
ALEXANDER CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC.,
United States of America, ex rel,
HYDRO GREEN LLC,
United States of America, ex rel,
Plaintiffs-CounterDefendants-Appellees,
versus
SAUER, INC.,
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Counter
Claimants-Cross Claimants,
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC,
f.k.a. Jordan Jones & Goulding Inc,
Defendant-Cross DefendantAppellant.

Case: 15-13668

Date Filed: 12/05/2016

Page: 2 of 3

_______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(December 5, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and ROGERS, * Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case arose out of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers roadway
construction project at Fort Benning, Georgia. Sauer, Inc., was the Corps’ general
contractor; Alexander Contracting Co. and Hydro-Green were Sauer’s paving
subcontractors, and Jacobs Engineering, Inc., was the engineer Sauer employed to
design the project.
This appeal involves Alexander and Hydro-Green’s claim that Jacobs
negligently misrepresented the thickness of the pavement that the Corps’ contract
with Sauer required. They alleged that, in bidding for the paving work, they relied
on Jacobs’ representation that the paving would consist of 4.5 inches of asphalt,
instead of the six inches of asphalt as the Corps’ specifications required.
Consequently, their bids for the paving work, which Sauer accepted, were too low
and they had to absorb the cost of the additional 1.5 inches of asphalt. The jury
found that Jacobs made the negligent misrepresentation alleged, that Alexander
*

Honorable John M. Rogers, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
2

Case: 15-13668

Date Filed: 12/05/2016

Page: 3 of 3

and Hydro-Green reasonably relied on it to their detriment, and that their losses
amounted to $356,664 and $114,311 respectively, and therefore assessed their
damages in those amounts.
Jacobs moved the District Court for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), arguing that Alexander and Hydro-Green
were required to prove professional negligence and had failed to do so, and that
they had failed to prove Jacobs had misrepresented a material fact which
Alexander and Hydro-Green had reasonably relied on to their detriment. Jacobs
moved the court to provide on the verdict form submitted to the jury for
apportionment of damages between Jacobs and Sauer. The court denied Jacobs’
motion. Jacobs challenges these dispositions in this appeal.
After entertaining oral argument and considering the parties’ briefs, we find
no error in the District Court’s denial of Jacobs’ motion. The evidence was plainly
sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and the denial of Rule 50(b) relief. As for
the apportionment issue, we discern no misapplication of Georgia law. Because
Georgia’s apportionment statute, Ga. Code § 51-12-33, requires the trier-of-fact to
apportion damages only in cases involving injury to person or property, the statute
does not require apportionment in this case. See City of Atlanta v. Benator, 714
S.E. 2d 109, 117 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
3