Contract breach; Motion for JNOV; Genna v Jackson; Motion for a new trial based on the jury’s damages award; MCR 2.611(A)(1)(c), (d), & (e); Professional negligence/malpractice; Statute of limitations; MCL 600.5805(8) & (13); Motions for summary disposition, directed verdict, & JNOV; Damages cap based on interpretation of the contract; Need for U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) approval for an amendment; 7 CFR §§ 1753.11(a)(2) & (d)

The court held that the trial court improperly granted defendant-Casair’s motion for JNOV on its breach of contract counterclaim, but did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff-JDF’s motion for a new trial based on the jury’s damages award for the professional negligence or malpractice counterclaim. The trial court also did not err in denying JDF’s motion for summary disposition of that claim based on the statute of limitations, or its motions for a directed verdict or JNOV. Finally, the court rejected JDF’s argument that the trial court erred in limiting its potential recovery based on its interpretation of the contract. Thus, the court reversed the grant of Casair’s JNOV motion, remanded for correction of the error in “reforming the jury’s verdict to ascribe the damages awarded to a breach of contract claim the jury clearly rejected[,]” and otherwise affirmed. JDF sued for payment for an engineering project. Casair countersued due to alleged “issues with the project. A jury rejected Casair’s claim for breach of contract but found that JDF was liable for professional negligence and awarded $1.5 million in damages.” On appeal, the court first found that the trial court erred in granting Casair’s motion for JNOV. It “was possible to reconcile the jury’s verdict.” The issue was whether JDF breached the contract and caused damages. The court concluded that “reasonable people could differ when determining whether JDF was liable for breach of contract[.]” While the contract required it to, for example, “render its services ‘consistent with sound professional practices,’ it is possible that the jury found that JDF engaged in ‘sound professional practices’ to the extent necessary to abide by the Contract. The evidence demonstrated that the project outside of Big Rapids, for example, was operational.” There was also testimony “that JDF’s invoices were improper but did not violate the Contract. The jury may also have determined that JDF breached the Contract but that the breaches themselves did not cause damages.” The court held that “reasonable jurors could have disagreed about whether JDF was liable for breach of contract[.]” But as to JDF’s motion for a new trial, while “there was no testimony about specific damages of $1.5 million, there was testimony about various amounts of damages and no basis to find that the jury failed to consider the evidence when determining its award.”