Contract breach damages; Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed

The court held that the trial court did not err in granting plaintiff partial summary disposition and entering a damages award because the affidavit and deposition testimony presented by defendant-Chalmers Square did not raise a genuine issue of material fact. The trial court’s judgment ordered Chalmers to pay plaintiff, a property restoration company, “$416,380.91 for restoration work, in addition to $44,665.13 in costs and attorney fees[.]” Chalmers owns a residential apartment building on which plaintiff performed restoration services. Chalmers is co-owned by nonparty-L. There was no dispute that a contract existed or over whether it was breached. The dispute concerned the amount of damages to which plaintiff was entitled. Chalmers asserted “the trial court erred by ruling on the issue of damages” because the issue was contested and a material fact dispute existed. It relied on statements by L in his deposition and an affidavit. But the court found that his deposition testimony did “not raise a genuine issue of material fact because it fails to go beyond mere allegations. Stating the bill for services was deficient only provides [L’s] opinion without any factual support for such a contention, as does [L’s] comparison between the price of restoration services and the cost of general building. Chalmers presents no evidence suggesting the prices for the services rendered were inconsistent with plaintiff’s estimates for the repairs or the rates for each of the specific services provided.” As to his affidavit, Chalmers contended L’s comments as to “plaintiff’s reliance on insurance proceeds and its unnecessary services are sufficient.” However, the court determined that, much “like his deposition testimony, [L’s] statements do not raise a genuine issue of material fact because they fail to go beyond mere conjecture. [He] does not point to any specific services he believes were unnecessary or provide any basis for the assertion plaintiff went beyond the scope of the work agreement. There is no indication by Chalmers or [L] that plaintiff’s services were exaggerated compared to what is described in the scope of work, or that the charges did not comport with the rate schedule.” Thus, Chalmers did not show how L’s affidavit raised a genuine issue of material fact. Affirmed.