Lee Winey v. William E. Dailey, Inc.; Richard and Deborah Cutler, D/B/A Cutler Construction Co.; and Ray and Scott…

Summary

The court held that evidence supported submitting Winey's fraud-in-the-inducement and related consumer-fraud theories to the jury because a construction estimate may be actionable when knowingly understated to induce a contract. It upheld the directed verdict for Deborah Cutler, rejected application of the consumer-fraud statutory presumption to ongoing-contract billing disputes, and found no preserved objection to the general consumer-fraud instruction. The court also upheld the damages verdict and allocation instruction but required prejudgment interest on readily ascertainable overbilling damages. No separate opinions were provided.