Univ. of Louisville v. RAM Eng'g & Constr., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Univ. of Louisville v. RAM Eng'g & Constr., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (29 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mark Whaley v. Definitive Roofing and Specialty Coatings, LLC, et al. (kyed, 2026-03-09)
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mark Whaley v. Definitive Roofing and Specialty Coatings, LLC, et al.
E.D. Ky. · 2026 · confidence medium
“Interest for breach of a contract to pay a certain sum is recoverable as consequential (general) damages from the time the amount is due.” Univ. of Louisville v. RAM Eng’g & Const., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Big Sandy Company, L.P. v. Eqt Gathering, LLC
Ky. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
“Damages for breach of a contract are normally that sum which would put an injured party into the same position it would have been in had the contract been performed.” Univ. of Louisville v. RAM Eng’g & Const., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Ky. App. 2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eqt Gathering, LLC v. Big Sandy Company, L.P.
Ky. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
“Damages for breach of a contract are normally that sum which would put an injured party into the same position it would have been in had the contract been performed.” Univ. of Louisville v. RAM Eng’g & Const., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Ky. App. 2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James R. Poston, Jr. v. Thomas Welch
Ky. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Sewer Dist., 174 S.W.3d 440, 450 (Ky. 2005)). “[E]quity and justice demand that one who uses money or property of another . . . should at least pay interest for its use in the absence of some agreement to the contrary.” University of Louisville v. RAM Engineering & Const., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Ky. App. 2005) (quoting Curtis v. Campbell, 336 S.W.2d 355, 361 (Ky. 1960)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kamps, Inc. v. Mustang Aviation, Inc.
E.D. Ky. · 2020 · confidence medium
“Damages for breach of a contract are normally that sum which would put an injured party into the same position it would have been in had the contract been performed.” Univ. of Louisville v. RAM Eng’g & Constr., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marango v. Kentucky Retirement Systems
Ky. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
He disagrees with the circuit court’s rationale under McCullough, supra, and Powell, supra, citing in support of his position University of Louisville v. RAM Engineering & Constr., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 749 (Ky. App. 2005), which held that “[t]he General Assembly waived sovereign immunity for contract actions with the enactment of KRS 45A.245.” Because his retirement is considéred a contract, 1 Marango asserts that the waiver language in RAM Engineering should apply in the present matter.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Linda Holt v. John Griffin (2×)
6th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
Kentucky follows the modern trend and permits prejudgment interest on unliquidated claims in an “amount” to be determined by “the trial court weighing the equitable considerations.” Univ. of Louisville v. RAM Eng’g & Constr., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Ky.App.2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ford Contracting, Inc. v. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
Ky. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
“When the amount [of damages] is ‘unliquidated,’ the amount of prejudgment interest, if any, is a matter for the trial court weighing the equitable considerations.” University of Louisville v. RAM Engineering & Const., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Ky.App.2005).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Louisville Arena Authority, Inc. v. RAM Engineering & Construction, Inc.
Ky. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
University of Louisville v. RAM Engineering & Const., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 749 (Ky.App.2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Curry v. Bennett
Ky. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Furthermore, Bennett is entitled to recover such damages for breach of the breeding contract “as may fairly and reasonably be considered as arising naturally-that is according to the usual course of things-from the breach of the contract itself or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach.... ” University of Louisville v. RAM Engineering & Const., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Ky.App.2005).
discussed Cited "see" River City Fraternal Order v. Ky. Ret. Sys. (2×)
6th Cir. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
Majority Op. at 11; see RAM Eng’g & Constr., 199 S.W.3d at 748 (describing how “[i]nterest for breach of a contract to pay a certain sum is recoverable as consequential (general) damages”).
cited Cited "see" Joiner v. Tran & P Properties, LLC
Ky. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See University of Louisville v. RAM Engineering & Construction, Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Ky. App. 2005).
cited Cited "see" True v. Fath Bluegrass Manor Apartment
Ky. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See University of Louisville v. RAM Engineering & Construction, Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Ky.App.2005).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Tyson
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See University of Louisville v. RAM Engineering & Const., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Ky.App.2005); Cooper v. Hubbard, 703 S.W.2d 494, 497 (Ky.App. 1986); Dalton v. Mullins, 293 S.W.2d 470, 474 (Ky.1956). (i) Plaintiff's Contract Claim Against Straight Out As stated above, Straight Out has never denied being in breach of the Event Agreement, in that the final $1.9 million of Tyson's purse was never paid.
discussed Cited "see" Neilson v. Straight-Out Promotions, LLC
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See University of Louisville v. RAM Engineering & Const., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Ky.App.2005); Cooper v. Hubbard, 703 S.W.2d 494, 497 (Ky.App. 1986); Dalton v. Mullins, 293 S.W.2d 470, 474 (Ky.1956). (i) Plaintiff’s Contract Claim Against Straight Out As stated above, Straight Out has never denied being in breach of the Event Agreement, in that the final $1.9 million of Tyson’s purse was never paid.
cited Cited "see" Pinkston v. Audubon Area Community Services, Inc.
Ky. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See University of Louisville v. RAM Engineering & Construction, Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Ky.App.2005).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Babcock Power, Inc. v. Stephen Kapsalis
6th Cir. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Co., 694 S.W.2d 702, 704-05 (Ky. 1985), a party is entitled to compensatory damages, i.e., those damages which “put the injured party in the same condition, so far as money can do so, in which he would have been if the contract had been duly performed.” Graves v. Winer, 351 S.W.2d 193, 195 (Ky. 1961); see also Univ. of Louisville v. RAM Eng’g & Constr., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005); McGuire v. Lorian, 5 Ky. Op. 145, 145 (Ky. 1872) (holding that a party may recover only actual damages for breach of contract).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE, Appellant,
v.
RAM ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellee
2004-CA-001752-MR.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
Nov 18, 2005.
199 S.W.3d 746
Barbara Reid Hartung, Holland N. McTyeire, V., Benjamin A. Fletcher, Angela D. Koshewa, University Counsel, Louisville, KY, for Appellant., Robert C. Ewald, Deborah H. Patterson, Christopher W. Brooker, Louisville, KY, for Appellee., J. Gary Bale, Frankfort, KY, for Amicus Curiae, Finance and Administration Cabinet.
Minton, Schroder, Taylor.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

SCHRODER, Judge.

The University of Louisville (the University) appeals the award of prejudgment interest in an action for a breach of contract on the grounds that the trial court did not have the authority to award prejudgment interest against a governmental entity. We opine that KRS 45A.245 waives sovereign immunity in contract actions against the state with a cap on damages of twice the original contract price. Because the cap is the only limiting factor on damages, the trial court was correct in awarding prejudgment interest and we affirm.

RAM Engineering & Construction, Inc., (RAM) was successful in its suit against the University for a breach of contract for the construction of part of Papa John’s Cardinal Stadium. On remand, the trial court awarded $382,211.98 prejudgment interest as part of the damage award. The University appeals the prejudgment interest element of damages, contending the trial court has no authority to award prejudgment interest without an explicit waiver of the University’s governmental immunity.

Damages for breach of a contract are normally that sum which would put an injured party into the same position it would have been in had the contract been performed. Hogan v. Long, 922 S.W.2d 368, 371 (Ky.1995). There are two kinds of damages for breach of contract, general arid special damages. Moss Jellico Coal Co. v. American Ry. Express Co., 198 Ky. 202, 248 S.W. 508, 509 (1923).

[GJeneral damages, recoverable for a breach of contract, are such as may fairly and reasonably be considered as arising naturally — that is according to the usual course of things — from the breach of the contract itself or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach ... special are such as arise where there are special circumstances attending the making of the contract and its observance would take it out of the natural and usual course of things.

United States Bond & Mortgage Corp. v. Berry, 249 Ky. 610, 61 S.W.2d 293, 297 (1933).

Interest for breach of a contract to pay a certain sum is recoverable as consequential (general) damages from the time the amount is due. Nucor Corp. v. General Electric Co., 812 S.W.2d 136 (Ky.1991). Interest can be both prejudgment and postjudgment. When damages are “liquidated,” prejudgment interest follows as a matter of course. Id. at 141, 144. When the amount is “unliquidated,” the amount of prejudgment interest, if any, is a matter for the trial court weighing the equitable considerations. Id. at 143, 144. See also, General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Judd, 400 S.W.2d 685 (Ky.1966). “[E]quity and justice demand that one who uses money or property of another ... should at least pay interest for its use in the absence of some agreement to the contrary.” Curtis v. Campbell, 336 S.W.2d 355, 361 (Ky.1960) (citation omitted). “This principle applies whether or not the amount owed to another is liquidated or unliquidated.” Id. (citing Dalton v. Mullins, 293 S.W.2d 470 (Ky.1956)).

Sovereign immunity applies to contract claims unless expressly waived by the General Assembly. Ky. Const. § 231; Ammerman v. Board of Education of Nicholas County, 30 S.W.3d 793 (Ky.2000).[*749] The General Assembly waived sovereign immunity for contract actions with the enactment of KRS 45A.245. [1] The only limitation on damages is that they cannot exceed twice the original amount of the contract. KRS 45A.245(2). [2] Interest is part of general damages as a consequence of the breach. See Nucor, 812 S.W.2d at 143. Interest “is an equitable means of recognizing the economic reality that [the University] has enjoyed a long opportunity to earn interest on the money that it wrongfully withheld from [RAM].” Reliable Mechanical, Inc. v. Naylor Industrial Services, Inc., 125 S.W.3d 856, 858 (Ky.App.2003). The waiver of sovereign immunity does not distinguish between the types of damages but puts a cap on total damages. Likewise, there is no distinction between prejudgment interest and postjudgment interest. Therefore, the award of prejudgment interest would follow the rules of contract law, subject to the cap in KRS 45A.245(2). Consequently, the trial court did not err in ruling that it was authorized to award prejudgment interest in a contract action against an agency of the state.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court is affirmed.

ALL CONCUR.

1

. Part of the Model Procurement Code. All-American Movers, Inc. v. Kentucky ex rel. Hancock, 552 S.W.2d 679 (Ky.App.1977). See also Foley Construction Company v. Ward, 375 S.W.2d 392 (Ky.1963).

2

. The "cap” on damages distinguishes this case from Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Highways v. Lamb, 549 S.W.2d 504 (Ky.1976), and Powell v. Board of Education of Harrodsburg, 829 S.W.2d 940 (Ky.App.1991), which recognized there has to be statutory or contractual authority to authorize interest even where sovereign immunity is waived.