Dan Ryan Builders, Inc v. Crystal Ridge Development, Inc

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-00161-IMK-JSK. [999567628]. [13-2234]

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 27

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2234

DAN RYAN BUILDERS, INC., a Maryland Corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CRYSTAL
RIDGE
DEVELOPMENT,
INC.,
a
Corporation;
LANG
BROTHERS,
INC.,
a
Corporation; ROBERT S. LANG, an individual,

West
West

Virginia
Virginia

Defendants - Appellees,
v.
HORNOR BROTHERS ENGINEERS,
Third Party Defendant - Appellee,
and
BRYCO BORE & PIPE, INC.; LOUDOUN VALLEY CONCRETE,
DINGESS TRANSPORT, INC.; NORTH STAR FOUNDATION,
PENNSYLVANIA SOIL AND ROCK INCORPORATED,

INC.;
INC.;

Third Party Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:09-cv-00161-IMK-JSK)

Argued:

December 10, 2014

Decided:

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

April 20, 2015

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 27

Affirmed by published opinion.
Judge Motz wrote the majority
opinion, in which Judge Wynn joined.
Judge Gregory wrote a
separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

ARGUED: Avrum Levicoff, LEVICOFF, SILKO & DEEMER, P.C.,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.
Tiffany R. Durst,
PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Morgantown, West
Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Julie A. Brennan, LEVICOFF,
SILKO & DEEMER, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.
Nathaniel D. Griffith, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE,
PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees Crystal Ridge
Development, Inc., Lang Brothers, Inc., and Robert S. Lang.
Frank E. Simmerman, Jr., Chad L. Taylor, SIMMERMAN LAW OFFICE,
PLLC, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee Hornor Brothers
Engineers.

2

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 3 of 27

DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge:
After a bench trial in this diversity case, the district
court ordered Robert Lang and his construction business, Lang
Brothers, Inc. (collectively “Lang”) to pay Dan Ryan Builders,
Inc. (“Dan Ryan”) limited damages for breach of contract.
Ryan appeals, seeking additional damages.

Dan

We affirm.

I.
We

briefly

summarize

the

relevant

facts,

which

are

undisputed. 1
Lang owned seventy acres of land in West Virginia, on which
he

sought

to

Development.

build
In

a

2005,

housing
pursuant

development,
to

a

Lot

Crystal

Purchase

Ridge

Agreement

(“LPA”), Lang subdivided the land and contracted to sell Dan
Ryan

all

143

lots

in

Crystal

Ridge.

The

LPA

detailed

the

responsibilities of both parties, including lot inspection, fill
compaction, and building schedules.
The parties also entered into a number of other written
contracts

in

Contract

with

connection
Independent

with

the

Contractor

development,
(“fill

slope

including

a

contract”).

They agreed in that contract that Lang would construct a fill

1

Dan Ryan concedes that “[t]he district court’s findings of
fact are beyond reproach.” Appellant’s Br. 52. Similarly, Lang
does not challenge them in any way.
3

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 4 of 27

slope that would provide grading on certain lots to accommodate
the construction of houses.

Lang completed the grading work and

was paid in full by Dan Ryan.
In 2006, Dan Ryan paid Lang for the first twelve lots in
accord with the LPA.

Dan Ryan also entered into additional

contracts with Lang including a second fill slope contract.

In

2007, Dan Ryan purchased another five lots, and Lang continued
to work on the infrastructure of the Crystal Ridge Development.
In March 2007, cracks appeared in the basement slab and
foundation walls of a partially constructed house on one of the
first lots that Dan Ryan had purchased.

An engineering firm

engaged by Dan Ryan concluded that stabilization of that house,
as well as of another house displaying similar cracks, required
remediation.
exacerbated

These
existing

problems
tensions

and

their

between

Dan

associated
Ryan

and

costs
Lang,

ultimately leading to a “divorce” (the parties’ term) between
the two.

The parties memorialized the divorce in the “First

Amendment to Lot Purchase Agreement” (the Amendment).

Under the

Amendment, Dan Ryan agreed to purchase from Lang the remaining
thirty-three lots in Crystal Ridge, and the parties’ development
responsibilities were apportioned differently.
In December 2007, the slope behind the lot that had first
exhibited cracks began sliding downhill toward a nearby highway.
A geotechnical study concluded that the slope had failed due to
4

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 5 of 27

its natural composition, soil type, and poor construction.

Dan

Ryan also encountered difficulties related to Crystal Ridge’s
stormwater management system, development permits, and entrance
drive.
In December 2009, Dan Ryan filed this lawsuit against Lang
seeking monetary damages.
three causes of action.

In its complaint, Dan Ryan asserts
Initially and principally, Dan Ryan

alleges negligence by Lang in connection with construction of
the fill slope.

Second, Dan Ryan alleges that Lang breached

several of its contractual duties under both the LPA and the
Amendment.

The

third

cause

of

action

alleges

fraudulent

misrepresentation by Lang; Dan Ryan abandoned this last claim at
trial.
Following several pre-trial conferences and numerous pretrial
trial.

submissions,
The

the

court

district

admitted

court
many

held

a

exhibits

testimony from more than a dozen witnesses.

five-day
and

bench

considered

After extensive

post-trial submissions, 2 the court issued a detailed, ninety-page
order setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law.

2

The court permitted the parties to submit up to eighty
pages of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
After the deadline for these submissions had passed, Dan Ryan
moved for leave to file a supplemental post-trial memorandum.
The district court denied that motion.
5

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 6 of 27

On the contract claim, the district court awarded Dan Ryan
$175,646.25 in damages and $77,575.50 in pre-judgment interest
for breach of the LPA and the Amendment with respect to claims
for repairs on the road leading to Crystal Ridge.

The court

found that Dan Ryan had failed to carry its burden of proof with
respect to other asserted breaches of the LPA and the Amendment,
i.e.,

those

relating

to

an

entrance

easement,

a

stormwater

management and erosion control system, and other “miscellaneous
J.A. 2353. 3

bad work.”

Accordingly, the court denied further

contract damages.

The district court then rejected Dan Ryan’s

negligence claim.

The court reasoned that this claim failed

under West Virginia’s “gist of the action” doctrine, which bars
recovery in tort when the duty that forms the basis of the
asserted

tort

relationship.

claim

arises

solely

from

a

contractual

Dan Ryan timely noted this appeal.

We “review a judgment following a bench trial under a mixed
standard of review -- factual findings may be reversed only if
clearly erroneous, while conclusions of law, including contract
construction, are examined de novo.”

Roanoke Cement Co. v. Falk

Corp., 413 F.3d 431, 433 (4th Cir. 2005).

On appeal, Dan Ryan

does not challenge the district court’s resolution of its claim
for breach of the LPA and the Amendment.
3

Rather, Dan Ryan

Citations to the “J.A.” refer to the Joint Appendix filed
by the parties to this appeal.
6

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 7 of 27

appeals only the court’s determination that the “gist of the
action” doctrine bars its tort claim, and the court’s failure to
recognize that its tort claim was really a claim for breach of
the fill slope contracts. 4

II.
Dan Ryan offers two reasons why the district court erred in
its “gist of the action” holding.

We consider each in turn.

A.
First, citing Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243
(2008),

Dan

Ryan

contends

that

the

“principle

of

party

presentation” ought to have prevented the district court from
relying

on

presentation

the

“gist

principle

of

the

action”

generally

doctrine.

cautions

a

The

federal

party

court

to

consider only the claims and contentions raised by the litigants
before

it.

Dan

Ryan

asserts

that

the

party

presentation

principle applies here because neither it nor Lang raised the
“gist of the action” doctrine in submissions to the district
court.
Greenlaw is the Supreme Court’s most robust articulation of
the party presentation principle.
4

There, in language on which

The district court also dismissed as moot the derivative
claims Lang had brought against third-party defendant Hornor
Brothers Engineering for contribution. Dan Ryan does not appeal
that ruling.
7

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 8 of 27

Dan Ryan rests its claim, the Court stated that “in the first
instance and on appeal, . . . we rely on the parties to frame
the issues for decision.”

Greenlaw, 554 U.S. at 243.

But

although Greenlaw paints the concept of party presentation in
broad

brushstrokes,

appellate

court

its

may

nonappealing party.”

holding

not

is

alter

much

a

narrower,

judgment

Greenlaw, 554 U.S. at 244.

i.e.,

to

“an

benefit

a

In fact, other

than in Greenlaw, the Court has invoked the party presentation
principle only twice, both times in stressing the limits of the
principle.

See Wood v. Milyard, 132 S.Ct. 1826, 1833-34 (2012)

(courts may sua sponte consider statute-of-limitations defenses
overlooked by the State in habeas cases); Arizona v. California,
530

U.S.

392,

preclusion

412-13

defense

(2000)

the

(courts

parties

may

failed

sua

to

sponte

raise

in

raise

a

special

circumstances).
Moreover, neither in Greenlaw nor in any other case has the
Court

ever

constrains

suggested
a

that

court’s

controlling law.

the

party

fundamental

presentation

obligation

to

principle
ascertain

A party’s failure to identify the applicable

legal rule certainly does not diminish a court’s responsibility
to apply that rule.
the

rule

of

law

The judiciary would struggle to maintain

were

it

limited

to

assertions about what the law requires.
well

established

that

“[w]hen

an
8

issue

the

parties’

competing

For this reason, it is
or

claim

is

properly

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 9 of 27

before the court, the court is not limited to the particular
legal theories advanced by the parties, but rather retains the
independent power to identify and apply the proper construction
of governing law.”
90, 99 (1991).
a

“court

may

Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S.

Thus, the Supreme Court has long recognized that
consider

an

issue

‘antecedent

to

.

.

.

and

ultimately dispositive of’ the dispute before it, even an issue
the parties fail to identify and brief.”

U.S. Nat’l Bank of Or.

v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 447 (1993)
(quoting

Arcadia

v.

Ohio

Power

Co.,

498

U.S.

73,

77

(1990)

(alterations in original)).
Here, West Virginia’s “gist of the action” doctrine is just
such an “antecedent” and “dispositive” issue, since it goes to
the duty element of any West Virginia tort claim.

The “gist of

the action” doctrine requires plaintiffs seeking relief in tort
to

identify

a

non-contractual

duty

breached

by

the

alleged

tortfeasor.

See Gaddy Eng’g Co. v. Bowles Rice McDavid Graff &

Love,

746

LLP,

S.E.2d

568,

577

(W.

Va.

2013).

“[T]he

determination of whether a plaintiff is owed a duty of care by a
defendant must be rendered by the court as a matter of law.”
Lockhart v. Airco Heating & Cooling, Inc., 567 S.E.2d 619, 622
(W. Va. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
To determine whether Dan Ryan established all of the required
elements of a tort claim under West Virginia law, the district
9

Appeal: 13-2234

court

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

necessarily

had

to

Pg: 10 of 27

consider

the

“gist

of

the

action”

doctrine and identify the source of any asserted duty.
We must therefore reject Dan Ryan’s contention that the
party

presentation

adjudicating

a

principle

West

barred

Virginia

the

tort

district

claim,

from

court,

when

considering

whether the elements of such a claim had been met. 5
B.
Dan Ryan also contends that the district court erred in
holding that the “gist of the action” doctrine dooms its tort
claim.

This contention is meritless.

Given that Dan Ryan’s

tort claim rests on Lang’s asserted negligence in performing two
contracts –- the LPA and the Amendment –- and not on any duty
independent

of

those

contracts,

the

“gist

of

the

action”

doctrine does indeed bar that claim.
“To prevail in a negligence suit, the plaintiff must prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant owed a
5

We note that third-party defendant Hornor Brothers
Engineering did develop the “gist of the action” doctrine in its
post-trial submissions to the district court. See J.A. 2186-88
(“[T]ort liability cannot arise from a breach of contractual
duty. . . . [T]he principle is that if a defendant would have
no duty of care to plaintiff but for the fact that the parties
have a contract, no independent professional negligence claim
may be maintained.” (citing Lockhart, 567 S.E.2d 619, and other
relevant West Virginia cases)). In so doing, Hornor alerted the
court (and other parties) to the principle and its application
to this case.
Accordingly, this is hardly a case in which a
court has “sall[ied] forth . . . looking for wrongs to right.”
Greenlaw, 554 U.S. at 244 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
10

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

legal duty to the plaintiff.”

Pg: 11 of 27

Strahin v. Cleavenger, 603 S.E.2d

197, 205 (W. Va. 2004) (emphasis added).
action”

doctrine,

a

party

to

a

Under the “gist of the

contract

can

prevail

on

a

negligence claim only if he can demonstrate “the breach of some
positive legal duty imposed by law because of the relationship
of the parties, rather than from a mere omission to perform a
contract obligation.”

Lockhart, 567 S.E.2d at 624 (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). 6
negligence

“action

in

tort

existence of the contract.”
citation omitted).

[must]
Id.

arise

In other words, the
independent

of

the

(internal quotation marks and

“If the action is not maintainable without

pleading and proving the contract, where the gist of the action
is the breach of the contract, either by malfeasance or nonfeasance,
whatever

it

is,

in

may

be

the

Appalachian

Power

substance,

Co.,

form
246

of

an
the

S.E.2d

action

on

the

pleading.”
624,

628

contract,

Cochran
(W.

Va.

v.

1978)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

6

This requirement -- that a tort claim must rest on a noncontractual duty -- is hornbook law in most jurisdictions, even
if they do not employ the “gist of the action” nomenclature.
See Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)(defining “tort” as
“[a] civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which a
remedy may be obtained, . . . a breach of a duty that the law
imposes”); Restatement (Third) of Torts:
Liab. for Econ. Harm
§ 3 (Tentative Draft No. 1, 2012) (explaining the general rule
that “there is no liability in tort for economic loss caused by
negligence in the performance or negotiation of a contract
between the parties”).
11

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 12 of 27

Only two years ago, in Gaddy, the West Virginia Supreme
Court of Appeals reiterated this requirement.

There, the court

unequivocally held that a plaintiff cannot recover in tort if
the complaint does no more than include “the bare bones averment
that

‘Defendants

negligently

with’ [the plaintiff].”

.

.

.

breached

their

746 S.E.2d at 577.

agreement

Here, a “bare

bones” recitation is all that the Amended Complaint offered with
respect to the fill slope claims:
Lang

“negligently

development

performed

obligations

under

or
the

Dan Ryan alleged only that
failed
LPA

to
and

substantial damage to [Dan Ryan]’s property.”

perform

various

Amendment

causing

J.A. 47 ¶ 39.

Gaddy further explains, in words that resonate here, that
recovery in tort will be barred if any of the following factors
is demonstrated:
contractual

“(1) where liability arises solely from the

relationship

between

the

parties;

(2)

when

the

alleged duties breached were grounded in the contract itself;
(3) where any liability stems from the contract; and (4) when
the tort claim essentially duplicates the breach of contract
claim or where the success of the tort claim is dependent on the
success of the breach of contract claim.”
577.

Gaddy, 746 S.E.2d at

Here, of course, Dan Ryan specifically alleges that Lang’s

liability for “negligent[] perform[ance]” of two contracts -the LPA and the Amendment -- caused its damages, and thus that

12

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 13 of 27

its tort claim asserting negligence in constructing the fill
slope arises from these contracts.
In

its

briefing

on

appeal,

Dan

Ryan

additional source of Lang’s supposed duty:
duty of care owed by a contractor.”

points

to

one

“[t]he common law

Appellant’s Br. 30.

But

if, as Dan Ryan contends, “the gravamen of the breach was the
failure to construct the fill slope in a good and workmanlike
manner,” id. at 31, Lang breached not an independent legal duty
but an implied warranty arising out of –- in fact, created by -the LPA and the Amendment.

See Thacker v. Tyree, 297 S.E.2d

885, 887 (W. Va. 1982) (“In the area of construction contracts,
. . . there is general recognition that an implied warranty of
fitness and workmanlike quality attaches to such contracts.”).
In

sum,

plaintiff’s

this
claims

is

precisely

are

“simply

masquerading as” tort claims.

the

kind

breach

of
of

case

in

contract

which
claims

Gaddy, 746 S.E.2d at 577.

See

also Covol Fuels No. 4, LLC v. Pinnacle Mining Co., LLC, No. 141395,

Slip

doctrine

Op.

at

applicable

25

(4th

where

Cir.

party’s

2015)

(gist

tort

claims

[its] claim for breach of contract”).

of

the

action

“simply

recast

The district court did

not err in invoking the “gist of the action” doctrine, and in
concluding that Dan Ryan’s “negligence” claim was actually a
claim for breach of contract.

Thus, Dan Ryan’s negligence claim

fails as a matter of law.
13

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 14 of 27

III.
Alternatively, Dan Ryan now seeks damages under contract
claims never alleged or even asserted before the district court.
Specifically, Dan Ryan contends that the district court should
have

awarded

it

damages

for

a

breach

of

the

fill

slope

contracts.
Nowhere in its pleadings did Dan Ryan assert such a claim.
The district court pointed out that Dan Ryan did not reference
the fill slope contracts in its original complaint.

Indeed,

neither Dan Ryan’s Amended Complaint, nor its pre-trial listing
of contested issues of fact and law, nor its seventy-eight-page
post-trial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law even
mentions the fill slope contracts -- let alone alleges that Lang
breached them.

Dan Ryan concedes, as it must, that this is so.

Nevertheless, Dan Ryan maintains that “the absence of explicit
reference to the [fill slope contracts] in the pleadings is of
no consequence,” because a claim as to breach of those contracts
was tried by consent, as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(b)(2).
That

Rule

Appellant’s Br. 48.

provides

that

“an

issue

not

raised

by

the

pleadings” will be treated as if it were raised, provided it is
“tried by the parties’ express or implied consent.”
Civ. P. 15(b)(2).

Fed. R.

Of course, Rule 15(b)(2) does not offer a

failsafe for any and every faulty pleading.
14

Rather, the Rule

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 15 of 27

sets forth “an exception to the general rules of pleading . . .
when the facts proven at trial differ from those alleged in the
complaint, and thus support a cause of action that the claimant
did not plead.”

Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of

Richmond, 80 F.3d 895, 901 (4th Cir. 1996).
notice

to

the

defendant

of

the

allegations

But “[b]ecause
to

be

proven

is

essential to sustaining a cause of action, Rule 15(b) applies
only when the defendant has consented to trial of the non-pled
factual issues and will not be prejudiced by amendment of the
pleadings to include them.”

Id. (emphasis added).

Thus, Rule

15(b)(2) requires that a party expressly or impliedly consent to
trial on an unpled claim and not be prejudiced by doing so.

Dan

Ryan cannot satisfy the Rule’s requirements.
First,

the

record

offers

no

support

for

Dan

Ryan’s

assertion on appeal that Lang expressly consented to trial of
any claim of breach of the fill slope contracts.

Dan Ryan

maintains

Lang

did

pre-trial

contested

issues

of

so
fact,

by

including,

the

question

among
of

its

whether

“the

Lang

Defendants [are] liable to [Dan Ryan] for breach of contract in
relation to” the fill slope contracts.

J.A. 305.

But Lang’s

single reference to a breach of the fill slope contract in its

15

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 16 of 27

pre-trial memorandum does not constitute consent. 7

This pre-

trial submission demonstrates only that Lang regarded breach of
the fill slope contracts as a potential issue, which might be
raised by Dan Ryan at trial.

Dan Ryan mistakes Lang’s caution

in this regard for consent.
In fact, as early as the final pretrial conference, Lang
pointed

out

the

absence

of

any

reference

contracts in the Amended Complaint.

to

the

fill

slope

Lang’s counsel specifically

noted that “there were additional agreements” that “were not
attached as exhibits to the complaint” and distinguished the
obligations in those unpled contracts from the obligations in
the

LPA

and

the

contract claims.

Amendment,

on

which

J.A. 380-81.

Dan

Ryan

did

rest

its

Similarly, in its post-trial

submission, Lang noted that although the fill slope contracts
were

introduced

as

evidence

at

trial,

they

were

not

“even

mentioned anywhere within the Complaint or Amended Complaint”
and so could not provide Dan Ryan with a basis for recovery.
Far

from

consenting

to

trial

of

unpled

issues,

then,

Lang

consistently and expressly disclaimed any consent to trial on
the unpled claim of breach of the fill slope contracts.

7

We have said as much before.
See Interstate Petroleum
Corp. v. Morgan, 249 F.3d 215, 221 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc)
(noting that even where an issue was “discussed on occasion
during the course of [the] case,” that alone did not establish
trial by consent).
16

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 17 of 27

Moreover, in Dan Ryan’s own submissions to the district
court

it

Rather,

confirmed

when

expressly

Dan

that

Ryan

identified

it

did

raised

the

not

advance

contract

pertinent

such

claims

contracts

a

at

that

claim.

trial,
formed

it
the

source of the asserted breach -- the LPA and the Amendment -not the fill slope contracts.

Furthermore, after trial, in its

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, Dan Ryan set
forth in numbered paragraphs each of the damage awards sought
for breach of the LPA and the Amendment.

Dan Ryan did not

devote a numbered paragraph to any damage claim under the fill
slope contracts.

Dan Ryan did not propose that the district

court find that Lang breached the fill slope contracts.

And Dan

Ryan did not ask the district court to hold that Lang had any
specific obligations arising out of the fill slope contracts.
In sum, Dan Ryan’s own statements about the theory of its
case,

as

well

as

its

repeated

omission

of

the

now-asserted

breach of the fill slope contracts from any argument at trial or
post-trial confirm what Lang’s submissions make clear:

Lang did

not consent to trial of claims for breach of the fill slope
contracts.

See Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, 191 F.3d

394, 401 (4th Cir. 1999) (when a party “sets out in [a list of]
numbered paragraphs . . . its legal theories for recovery,” its
omission

of

a

particular

legal

theory

from

those

numbered

paragraphs militates against a finding of trial by consent); see
17

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 18 of 27

also Elmore v. Corcoran, 913 F.2d 170, 173 (4th Cir. 1990).
Accordingly,

Dan

Ryan

did

not

put

Lang

on

notice

of

any

potential liability under those contracts.
Moreover, Dan Ryan cannot establish Lang’s implied consent
by demonstrating that evidence at trial clearly supported only
this unpled claim.

We have previously explained that admission

without objection of evidence related to the unpled claim may be
“an indicium of implied consent” to trial of that claim.
v. Stevens, 617 F.2d 1038, 1040 (4th Cir. 1980).

McLeod

But if that

evidence is also “germane” to claims expressly in the pleadings,
its admission “cannot be treated as implied consent” to trial of
the unpled claim.

Id. at 1040-41.

Accord, Trinity Carton Co.

v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 767 F.2d 184, 193 (5th Cir. 1985);
see also 6A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal
Practice & Procedure § 1493 (3d ed. 2014).
Dan Ryan contends that consent to trial of a breach claim
under the fill slope contracts may be implied from its evidence
related generally to the slope failure and from the admission of
the two fill slope contracts themselves.

But evidence of the

slope failure was admitted in support of the claim that Lang
negligently constructed the slopes, not that it breached the

18

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

fill slope contracts. 8
to

an

asserted

Pg: 19 of 27

Accordingly, the evidence was “germane”

tort

claim

actually

present

in

Dan

Ryan’s

pleadings and cannot establish trial by consent of a phantom
contract claim.

Admission of the fill slope contracts, without

more, cannot establish consent to trial of a claim that those
contracts were breached.
Moreover, Lang would undoubtedly be prejudiced if we were
to accept Dan Ryan’s contention on appeal that the opposite is
true.

See

Withrow

v.

Williams,

507

U.S.

680,

696

(1993)

(holding that where the record “reveals neither thought, word,
nor deed . . . that could be taken as any sort of consent” to
trial

of

an

unpled

claim,

the

party

“was

manifestly

prejudiced”).
Dan Ryan had opportunities before, during, and after trial
to clarify its contract claims against Lang. 9

Yet at none of

8

Nor does the district court’s observation that Lang
“failed to live up to its contractual obligations” under the
fill slope contracts establish that breach of those contracts
was tried by consent.
J.A. 2375.
For the court had earlier
identified the LPA and the Amendment as the sole bases for all
breach of contract claims alleged by Dan Ryan.
See J.A. 232456.
Further, the court explained that any “[m]ention of the
Fill Slope Contract[s] was conspicuously absent from” Dan Ryan’s
complaint. J.A. 2373. Thus the court was clear that the claims
Dan Ryan might have alleged are distinct from the claims it
actually did allege.
9

Dan Ryan repeatedly failed to clarify the precise claims
under which it sought relief and the specific evidence
supporting each claim.
Examination of the trial transcript
(Continued)
19

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 20 of 27

these junctures did Dan Ryan contend that Lang breached the fill
slope contracts.

The omission of the claim at one of these

stages in the litigation –- in the amended complaint, or in the
pre-trial submissions, or in the presentation of the theory of
the

case,

or

in

the

post-trial

submissions

–-

might

evince

inadvertence and so allow the district court to consider the
claim.

But the repeated omission of the claim permits only one

conclusion:

Dan Ryan’s now-asserted claim that Lang breached

the fill slope contracts was not tried by consent, it was simply
omitted. 10

IV.
This is a messy case, spanning four years and thousands of
pages

of

trial

submissions.

During

the

course

of

such

reveals the district court’s frustration with Dan Ryan’s
haphazard submissions throughout the trial. For example, in an
order issued after trial, the court instructed that “Dan Ryan
shall clarify, within its proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law/post-trial legal memorandum, or in an
attachment thereto, which of its claimed damages flow from its
breach of contract theory and which flow from its negligence
theory.”
Summ. Order 4, Aug. 30, 2012, ECF No. 249.
But Dan
Ryan utterly failed to do this.
10

In the alternative, we hold that Dan Ryan has waived any
breach of contract claim based on the fill slope contracts. See
Helton v. AT&T Inc., 709 F.3d 343, 360 (4th Cir. 2013) (holding
that appellant’s argument not raised during a bench trial or in
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is waived on
appeal).
20

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

protracted
sight

of

Filed: 04/20/2015

litigation,
the

parties

necessity

of

Pg: 21 of 27

must

be

pleading

vigilant

and

not

proving

all

to

lose

of

the

elements of each cause of action.
The

district

court

properly

dismissed

Dan

Ryan’s

tort

claim, alleging negligence in construction of the fill slope,
because Dan Ryan rested that claim solely on asserted breach of
two contracts -- the LPA and the Amendment.

We now hold that

Dan Ryan never alleged, and the parties never consented to trial
on, a claim of breach of the fill slope contracts.

Contrary to

Dan Ryan’s contention, this result does not unfairly penalize it
for a purely formal error.

Rather, it simply holds Dan Ryan to

the requirements of the law.

A claim grounded on breach of

contract (here, the LAP and the Amendment) does not give rise to
tort liability, and a claim never pled (here, breach of the fill
slope contracts) will not be regarded as pled unless actually
tried

by

consent.

These

are

the

only

fair

standards,

for

without them litigants and courts alike would be unable to ever
adequately prepare for trial.
against

shadow

claims,

and

Parties would be forced to defend
trial

courts

would

be

forced

to

search, as for a needle in a haystack, for unpled causes of
action purportedly hiding in the parties’ submissions.
It
through

is

not

the

ambiguously

responsibility
or

of

incorrectly

a

trial

labeled

court

allegations

pursuit of any potential basis for awarding relief.
21

to

wade
in

In the case

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 22 of 27

at hand, the district court did a commendable job of sorting
through a museum of non-sequiturs to identify the plaintiff’s
meritorious claims.

Notwithstanding Dan Ryan’s dissatisfaction

with the resulting judgment, it is clear that the district court
committed no error.
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

22

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 23 of 27

GREGORY, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in
part:
Dan Ryan Builders, Inc. (“Dan Ryan”) contracted with Robert
Lang

and

his

construction

business,

Lang

Brothers,

Inc.

(collectively “Lang”) to fix the steep gradation of a portion of
land that would not have otherwise supported the construction of
homes.

Lang

botched

the

job,

$1,722,104.91 to fix it. *
elements

of

a

breach

of

and

Dan

Ryan

had

to

pay

The district court found all the
contract:

that

the

contract

was

enforceable, J.A. 2369 n.43, that Dan Ryan paid Lang in full for
the

work,

J.A.

2307,

and

that

Lang

“[u]nquestionably

. . .

failed to live up to its contractual obligations, and [Dan Ryan]
suffered damages as a result,” J.A. 2375.

Yet, because Dan Ryan

did not formally amend its complaint to name one of the several
contracts at issue, the district court allowed Lang to escape
liability.

I cannot agree with this inequitable result, which

is

what

exactly

Rule

15(b)

of

the

Procedure was designed to prevent.

Federal

Rules

of

Civil

I therefore must dissent

from Part III of my good colleagues’ opinion.
Rule 15(b) allows liberal amendment of the pleadings to
conform to the evidence presented at trial.

*

See Equal Emp’t

This figure is based on Dan Ryan’s post-trial submission
asserting that expenses related to the slope remediation totaled
$1,772,104.91 before prejudgment interest.
Pl.’s Proposed
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 70, ECF No. 256.
23

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 24 of 27

Opportunity Comm’n v. Gen. Elec. Co., 532 F.2d 359, 367 n.17
(4th

Cir.

required.

1976).

Formal

amendment,

however,

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b)(2).

is

not

always

“When an issue not

raised by the pleadings is tried by the parties’ express or
implied consent, it must be treated in all respects as if raised
in the pleadings,” and “failure to amend does not affect the
result of the trial of that issue.”

Id.

This liberalism was

meant to obviate the necessity of a new trial every time an
opposing party points to a technical deficiency in pleading.
See 6A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1491 (3d ed. 2014) [hereinafter
Fed. Prac. & Proc.]; see also Deere & Co. v. Johnson, 271 F.3d
613, 621 (5th Cir. 2001) (“As has been often said, the principal
purpose of Rule 15(b) is judicial economy.”).

In fact, the rule

has always been construed to promote resolution of cases on the
merits, rather than on the pleading skills of counsel.
Prac.

&

Proc.

litigants

and

§ 1493.
the

courts

In

other

“avoid

words,

the

Rule

tyranny

of

See Fed.

15(b)

helps

formalism.”

Kirkland v. District of Columbia, 70 F.3d 629, 634 (D.C. Cir.
1995); Dunn v. Ewell (In re Santa Fe Downs, Inc.), 611 F.2d 815,
817 (10th Cir. 1980).
The

majority

insists

on

formalism,

finding

no

implied

consent to try the issue of whether Lang breached the Fill Slope
Contract.
trial.

However, this was the entire gravamen of the five-day

We may find implied consent where the defendant:
24

1)

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 25 of 27

fails to object to evidence relating to the unpleaded issue; 2)
actually produces evidence bearing on the issue; or 3) offers
direct arguments contesting the issue.

See Fed. Prac. & Proc.

§ 1493; see also McLeod v. Stevens, 617 F.2d 1038, 1040 (4th
Cir. 1980) (finding admission of evidence without objection an
indicium of implied consent).
here.

Even

mention

of

though

the

Dan

Fill

All three criteria are present

Ryan’s

Slope

post-trial

Contract,

Lang

submission
did

not

omitted

object

to

introduction of the contract into evidence, and the issue also
had

been

teed

statement.

up

since

at

least

the

parties’

pre-trial

Dan Ryan specified in its brief statement of its

claims that “the Lang Defendants owed legal duties to [Dan Ryan]
from four separate and distinct contractual undertakings.”
293-94.

J.A.

Dan Ryan’s theory was unambiguously that Lang breached

these duties by “[i]mproper placement and compaction of fill
material.”
in

its

own

J.A. 294.
section

Lang confronted these arguments head on
of

the

pre-trial

statement:

“The

Defendants did not breach any contract with [Dan Ryan].”
296.

Lang
J.A.

Lang’s theory was that even if it had followed proper

construction practices, “the slope would have still failed due
to a layer of colluvium in the soil.”

J.A. 301.

It thus sought

to place the blame on Horner Brothers Engineering, which Lang
alleged drew up lot grading plans that did not take into account
certain soil properties.
25

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

In

this

Filed: 04/20/2015

way,

Lang

was

Pg: 26 of 27

fully

prepared

to

litigate,

and

indeed litigated in substance, whether it was “liable to [Dan
Ryan] for breach of contract in relation to [the Fill Slope
Contract].”
proposed

J.A. 305 (contested issue from pre-trial statement

by

Lang).

During

the

trial,

“[t]he

experts

all

agree[d] that [Lang Brothers Inc.] did not employ the standard
construction practices that, if applied in the first instance,
would have ensured the slope’s stability.”

J.A. 2374 n.44.

It

turns out that Lang built the fill slope based on rudimentary
drawings

that

were

never

meant

to

serve

engineering plans and specifications.

as

a

full

set

of

Lang did not ensure the

slope foundation was built according to the proper ratio, and
did not install the appropriate draining system, among other
failings.

Basically, Lang picked up dirt from one part of the

development and set it on top of another.

The district court

had no trouble ascertaining that, according to the “credible
evidence,”

Lang’s

“poor

construction

proximate cause of the slope failure.”

practices

were

the

sole

J.A. 2374 n.44.

This is not a case where the evidence “incidentally tends”
to

establish

that

Lang’s

shoddy

construction

contractual duty to build a viable fill slope.
City

of

Frederick,

determining

whether

191

F.3d

394,

401

an

issue

has

been

(4th
tried

breached

a

Pinkley, Inc. v.
Cir.
by

1999).

In

consent,

we

rightly should be concerned with the defendant’s potential lack
26

Appeal: 13-2234

Doc: 46

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 27 of 27

of opportunity to defend against a new allegation.

But here, in

addition to Lang having had adequate notice of just what was at
issue,

treating

the

Fill

Slope

Contract

as

if

it

included in the pleadings in no way prejudices Lang.

had

been

Prejudice

occurs, like in the Withrow case cited by the majority, where
there

is

present

“failure
evidence

to

afford

bearing

on

[a
that

litigant]
[new]

an

opportunity

claim’s

Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 696 (1993).
even

claim

any

potential

prejudice,

perhaps

to

resolution.”
Lang does not

because

it

must

admit that inclusion of the Fill Slope Contract in Dan Ryan’s
complaint would not have compelled presentation of any different
evidence, or reliance on any alternative theory of defense.
Given the ample notice, implied consent, and utter lack of
prejudice to Lang, I would reverse the district court and find a
breach of the Fill Slope Contract.

27