LB Rose Ranch v. Hansen Construction

Citations

• 2019 COA 141

Syllabus

A group of homeowners sued LB Rose Ranch, LLC (Rose), Hansen Construction, Inc. (Hansen), and other defendants for damages caused by defects in the design, construction, and repair of 20 single-family homes. Hansen and other defendants compelled arbitration, but Rose did not. The arbitrator awarded damages to the homeowners and found that Hansen, Rose, and other defendants jointly caused the damages. Rose and the homeowners went to a jury trial. The jury found defendants jointly and severally liable for damages and found Rose 30% at fault and Hansen 15% at fault. The arbitrator attributed 20% fault to Rose and 18% to Hansen. Both the arbitrator and jury awarded damages on a lot-by-lot basis, rather than a single aggregate award. The trial court confirmed and entered judgment on the arbitration awards against Hansen and others. Hansen satisfied the judgment as to each homeowner, paying a total of over $9 million. The trial court found that Rose was bound by the jury's findings and Hansen by the arbitrator's findings, and the homeowners could not receive double recovery for damages already paid by Hansen. The court held that Rose had to pay each homeowner only those damages awarded by the jury that exceeded those awarded by the arbitrator and already paid by Hansen. It entered judgment against Rose for the entire amount of the jury award but found the judgment satisfied to the extent Hansen had already paid the damages. For many lots this extinguished Rose's duty to pay. Only $698,548.93 had not been satisfied by Hansen. Rose then settled with the homeowners for approximately $1 million and they released Rose from all claims, and both waived their right to appeal. Hansen sought a contribution judgment against Rose for the amount of common liability to the homeowners that Hansen had satisfied. The court applied the jury's finding as to Rose's percentage of fault and concluded Rose should pay Hansen 30% of the joint liability, or $1,774,369.91. On appeal, Rose argued th