BEAUMONT – The Ninth Court of Appeals has recently taken up an appeal submitted by American Air Systems, who had a $50,000 verdict rendered against it in a civil trial over a leaky A/C unit last year.
Plaintiffs Jeffery and Veronica Book sued American Air Systems on Nov. 17, 2011, in Jefferson County District Court, alleging the company installed a leaky unit in their home.
The trial began Aug. 31, 2015 in Judge Kent Walston’s 58th District Court and ended four days later.
According to the original petition, the system installed by the defendant was constantly leaking and caused tremendous damage to the couple’s home.
Although the jury found that neither party was negligent, jurors did find that American Air Systems engaged in deceptive acts, according to the charge of the court.
Jurors awarded the couple $4,675.51 for past property damages and $6,228 for repair costs. Individually, the Books were awarded $6,000 a piece for their mental anguish, bringing their total damages award to $22,903.51.
The jury also found the defendant failed to perform their repair service in a good workmanlike manner, awarding identical damages.
For representation in the trial court, plaintiffs’ attorney John Morgan was awarded $27,721.66, according to the charge.
Following the trial, American Air Systems filed motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, which Walston overruled, rendering judgment on the verdict for the plaintiffs last October, court records show.
On Dec. 30, American Air Systems filed an appeal, raising the following issues:
- Did the trial court err by denying AAS’ directed verdict and JNOV based upon its affirmative defense of statute of limitations?;
- Was the evidence at trial legally sufficient to sustain the jury's findings that false, misleading or deceptive acts or practices were a producing cause of the plaintiffs’ damages?;
- Was the evidence at trial legally sufficient to sustain the jury's findings that AAS failed to perform repair services in a good and workmanlike manner, or that such failure was a cause of any damages?; and
- Did the trial cou11 err in refusing AAS’ jury questions inquiring as to the date plaintiffs should have discovered that their injury was likely caused by AAS's wrongful acts?
The case was set for submission on briefs on Oct. 7.
AAS is represented by Joe Dodson, attorney for the Strong Pipkin Bissell & Ledyard law firm.
Case No. A191-364