The respondents purchased a defective new home from a builder and hired a negligent lawyer who failed to sue the engineer within the limitation period, incorrectly advising them they had no cause of action against the engineer.
After settling their first action, the respondents sued the lawyer for negligence.
The trial judge admitted the lawyer's negligence but characterized both the jury's damage assessments (cost to repair at $433,000 and diminution in value at $265,000) as perverse, awarded judgment for the lesser amount of $190,000 (after deducting the settlement amount), and significantly reduced the respondents' costs despite them bettering their settlement offer.
The Court of Appeal allowed the cross-appeal, finding the jury's assessments were not perverse, that damages should be awarded on a cost-to-repair basis at $433,000 without deducting the settlement amount, and that the respondents were entitled to substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49.10.