Elite Moving and Storage, Inc. v. Malco Enter's. of Nev., Inc. ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ELITE MOVING AND STORAGE, INC., No. 67061
Appellant,
vs.
MALCO ENTERPRISES OF NEVADA,
FILED
INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, MAY 1 1 2016
Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court judgment after a short
bench trial in a breach of contract action. Eighth Judicial District Court,
Clark County; Susan Scann, Judge.
Appellant entered into an agreement to rent a vehicle from
respondent on November 16, 2006. The vehicle was returned to
respondent with substantial damages sustained after a rollover accident.
When appellant failed to pay for the damages, respondent filed the
underlying action for breach of contract and related claims. The matter
went to arbitration, which resulted in an award in favor of appellant.
Respondent requested a trial de novo and after a short bench trial, a
judgment was entered in favor of respondent for $20,501.73 in damages.
This appeal followed.'
1 0nMarch 2, 2016, we stayed this appeal to allow the parties to
resolve a pending counterclaim regarding loss-of-use damages. On April
20, 2016, appellant filed a status report reflecting that respondent's loss-
of-use counterclaim was denied, thereby finally resolving all remaining
claims. Therefore, we vacate the March 2 stay of this appeal.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A
Appellant contends that the lower court erred in finding that
there was a valid contract making appellant liable for damages to the
vehicle. Appellant argues that the parties' agreement was ambiguous
because several versions were produced below, only one of which was
signed, and none of which contain initials declining the Loss Damage
Waiver (LDW) coverage. Appellant further contends that the lower court
should have allowed parol evidence as to the parties' course of dealing in
determining whether respondent should be liable for any damage to the
vehicle.
Having considered the parties' arguments and reviewed the
record, we conclude that the signed rental agreement was a valid contract
containing the essential terms, including the date rented, the return date,
the rental rate, and the terms of the LDW optional coverage. See May v.
Anderson, 121 Nev. 668, 672, 119 P.3d 1254, 1257 (2005) (providing that
this court reviews a district court's interpretation of a contract de novo).
The designation "Decline" is marked next to the LDW optional service, and
no charges for loss or damage coverage were included in the agreement.
Even assuming the contract was ambiguous because no
initials appear in the space designated for declining the LDW coverage,
the lower court found credible the testimony by appellant's president that
it was not his practice to purchase the optional coverage. See NRS
104.2202(1) (providing that evidence of the parties' course of dealing may
be used to explain, but not contradict, their agreement); Ringle v. Bruton,
120 Nev. 82, 91, 86 P.3d 1032, 1037 (2004) (stating that parol evidence is
admissible to clarify an ambiguous term as long as it does not contradict
the terms of the written agreement); see also Castle v. Simmons, 120 Nev.
98, 103, 86 P.3d 1042, 1046 (2004) (this court will not reweigh on appeal
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A 4r44
(7 (
the credibility of witnesses). Appellant has not established, based on the
record before us, that the lower court's findings are not supported by
substantial evidence. Whitemaine v. Aniskovich, 124 Nev. 302, 308, 183
P.3d 137, 141 (2008) (providing that this court reviews for substantial
evidence the district court's factual findings as to whether a contract
exists and the parties' intentions regarding a contractual provision).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Har" esty
Saitta
4WP
Pickering
cc: Hon. Susan Scann, District Judge
Robert F. Saint-Aubin, Settlement Judge
Hansen Rasmussen, LLC
Mazur & Brooks, A PLC
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A ae