ZOOK BROTHERS CONSTR CO v STATE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12983 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 197 6 ZOOK BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - THE STATE OF MONTANA, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable P e t e r Meloy, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant : Gough, Booth, Shanahan and Johnson, Helena, Montana Ronald Waterman a r g u e d , Helena, Montana P a t r i c k S u l l i v a n a r g u e d , Spokane, Washington F o r Respondent : Donald Douglas a p p e a r e d , Helena, Montana Cannon and G a r r i t y , Helena, Montgna Donald G a r r i t y a r g u e d , Helena, Montana S u b m i t t e d : J u n e 3, 1976 Decided : - Filed: fl\JG 2 k, **',-'? 25 pr 7 M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lewis and Clark County. Zook B r o t h e r s Construction Company (Zook) and t h e Montana Department of Highways ( S t a t e ) e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t i n June 1967, whereby Zook agreed t o c o n s t r u c t a segment of highway r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e "Montana C i t y P r o j e c t 1 ' , a 6.083 segment of i n t e r s t a t e and secondary highway i n J e f f e r s o n County, s o u t h of Helena, Montana. The c o n t r a c t allowed 300 days f o r completion of t h e p r o j e c t and involved a $3,000,000 c o n t r a c t between t h e parties. The i n s t a n t c a s e i n v o l v e s Zook's c l a i m f o r damages a l l e g e d l y caused by t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o inform Zook t h e S t a t e lacked r i g h t of-way a c c e s s t o p o r t i o n s of t h e p r o j e c t , which i s claimed t o have caused a d e l a y i n scheduled o p e r a t i o n s and e s c a l a t e d c o s t s of completion. Zook contends 1 ) i t i s e n t i t l e d t o damages f o r c o s t s i n c u r r e d i n completion of t h e p r o j e c t , 2) f o r t h e c o s t of "standby" on equipment it was unable t o u t i l i z e due t o unforeseen d e l a y s , and 3) f o r p r o f i t s a l l e g e d l y l o s t on t h i s p r o j e c t and subsequent p r o j e c t s due t o t h e d e l a y s and t i e u p of a s s e t s . The d e l a y s r e l i e d upon by Zook a s a b a s i s f o r i t s c l a i m were occasioned ( a ) by Montana Power Company's problem i n o b t a i n i n g a right-of-way f o r r e l o c a t i o n of a u t i l i t y l i n e , and ( b ) b y t h e i n a b i l i t y of t h e S t a t e t o o b t a i n right-of-way a c r o s s v a r i o u s mining claims through t h e p r o j e c t . (a) The u t i l i t y d e l a y . The S t a t e , a f t e r planning t h e g e n e r a l l o c a t i o n of t h e highway t o be c o n s t r u c t e d , took s t e p s t o s e c u r e a right-of-way and t o remove e x i s t i n g u t i l i t i e s from t h e a r e a . The Montana Power Company was c o n t a c t e d regarding t h e r e l o c a t i o n of an e l e c t r i c a l transmission l i n e . A r e l o c a t i o n c o n t r a c t w i t h Montana Power was approved by t h e S t a t e on June 27, 1967 and contained a p r o v i s i o n t h a t a l l u t i l i t y moves were expected t o be completed by August 31, 1967. Relocation of t h e power l i n e was c r i t i c a l t o Zook's schedule f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n , i n t h a t t h e l i n e had t o be removed p r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n of a f r o n t a g e road upon which Zook had planned t o d i v e r t t r a f f i c t o complete t h e main highway c o n s t r u c tion. The power l i n e was n o t r e l o c a t e d u n t i l A p r i l 1968. (b) The mining c l a i m d e l a y . The S t a t e encountered problems i n o b t a i n i n g t h e right-of-way through v a r i o u s mining claims w i t h i n t h e work a r e a . Zook was adv i s e d t o begin c o n s t r u c t i o n on J u l y 17, 1967, although t h e S t a t e was aware t h e r e were v a r i o u s problems o b t a i n i n g right-of-way through t h e mining claims. A t a p r e c o n s t r u c t i o n conference h e l d between t h e S t a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and Zook personnel on J u l y 19, 1967, Zook advised t h e S t a t e of i t s schedule f o r completion of t h e v a r i o u s phases of t h e p r o j e c t . The S t a t e d i s c u s s e d such d i v e r s e problems a s s a f e t y and t h e p r o t e c t i o n of w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t . The S t a t e d i d n o t a d v i s e Zook personnel of t h e right-of-way d i f f i c u l t i e s i t was encountering. Upon r e c e i p t of t h e S t a t e ' s o r d e r t o proceed on J u l y 17, 1967, Zook began t o mobilize a l l of t h e n e c e s s a r y equipment f o r completion of t h e p r o j e c t according t o t h e agreed schedule. However, on J u l y 27, 1967, t h e S t a t e i s s u e d a suspension o r d e r t o Zook which prevented Zook from proceeding w i t h c o n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e a r e a of t h e mining claims during n e g o t i a t i o n f o r and t e s t i n g of these claims. Zook's schedule c a l l e d f o r completion of "Frontage Road No.4" by September 15, 1967, and d i v e r s i o n of t r a f f i c from t h e e x i s t i n g route t o u t i l i z e sophisticated b l a s t i n g techniques, which were i n t e n d e d t o reduce g r e a t q u a n t i t i e s of r o c k t o a s i z e t h a t would a l l o w e x c a v a t i o n w i t h s e l f - l o a d i n g " s c r a p e r s " of l a r g e rock c u t s . Zook a l s o planned t o use l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of t h e excavated r o c k and m a t e r i a l a s f i l l i n t h e a r e a involved i n t h e mining c l a i m s t o p o r d e r . However, because of t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o Zook was f o r c e d t o abandon i t s o b t a i n t h e n e c e s s a r y right-of-way, p l a n of t r a f f i c d i v e r s i o n and v a r i o u s f i l l and e x c a v a t i o n r e q u i r e ments were delayed s e v e r a l weeks. R e s t r i c t i o n s on work i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e mining c l a i m s were l i f t e d on September 2 2 , 1967; t h e power p o l e s were removed by October 1 7 , 1967; Frontage Road No. 4 was t h e n a v a i l a b l e f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n work. On September 6 , 1967, Zook p e r s o n n e l informed t h e S t a t e by l e t t e r t h a t t h e u t i l i t y p o l e problem and theI1mining c l a i m s d e l a y has r e a l l y f o u l e d up o u r s c h e d u l e f o r completion of t h i s project and f e e l we should be g i v e n f u l l c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e s e d e l a y s . " On November 12, 1968, Zook submitted a c l a i m f o r damages r e s u l t i n g from t h e d e l a y s which i t claimed caused t h e 116 day over-run on t h e scheduled completion d a t e . by t h e S t a t e . T h i s c l a i m was r e j e c t e d On March 24, 1972 Zook f i l e d a "complete Documentation" [ ~ o o k ' sd e s c r i p t i o n ] of i t s c l a i m f o r an amount f a r i n e x c e s s of i t s o r i g i n a l claim. Following t h e submission t h e S t a t e undertook an a u d i t of t h i s c l a i m , of t h e Zook r e c o r d s f o r t h e purpose of e v a l u a t i o n of t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e c l a i m r e l a t i n g t o equipment standby c o s t s . Zook's c l a i m was o r a l l y denied by t h e D i r e c t o r of t h e S t a t e Highway Commission a f t e r s e v e r a l meetings between t h e p a r t i e s t o discuss t h a t claim. - 4 - Zook brought s u i t i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o r e c o v e r t h e amount claimed, based on t h e s t a t e ' s a l l e g e d b r e a c h i n f a i l i n g t o s e c u r e t h e right-of-way. After a lengthy t r i a l the d i s t r i c t court determined: "The S t a t e of Montana m a t e r i a l l y breached i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h Zook and t h e damages which Zook s u f f e r e d t h e r e b y were a d i r e c t and proximate r e s u l t of such breach." Zook was awarded a t o t a l of $140,917 i n damages, c o n s i s t i n g of $125,000 f o r maintenance of equipment i n standby s t a t u s , and $15,917 a s a d d i t i o n a l expense f o r t r a f f i c c o n t r o l c o s t s i n c u r r e d due t o i t s i n a b i l i t y t o complete Frontage Road No. 4 . Zook a p p e a l s c l a i m i n g i t i s e n t i t l e d t o damages fa.r i n e x c e s s of t h o s e g r a n t e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The S t a t e c r o s s - a p p e a l s on t h e b a s i s Zook's c l a i m i s b a r r e d by t h e s p e c i a l s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s p r e s c r i b e d by s e c t i o n 83-602, R.C.M. 1947, and by t h e terms of t h e c o n t r a c t and t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h a t a b r e a c h had o c c u r r e d i s n o t supported by t h e evidence. Hearing was had on March 5 , 1976 b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , and on March 2 5 , 1976, t h e Court o r d e r e d a d d i t i o n a l b r i e f s and argument l i m i t e d t o : 1. Causal connection between b r e a c h and damages. 2. Equipment standby c o s t s . 3. Traffic control costs. 4. Administrative c o s t s . Arguments h e a r d on June 3 , 1976 were r e s t r i c t e d t o a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e f o u r items enumerated. The S t a t e contends t h e c l a i m o f Zook i s b a r r e d by t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 83-602, R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s i n p e r - tinent part: "Whenever any c o n t r a c t i n g agency of t h e s t a t e of Montana provides a procedure f o r t h e s e t t l e m e n t of any q u e s t i o n o r d i s p u t e a r i s i n g between t h e cont r a c t o r and s a i d agency, t h e c o n t r a c t o r , b e f o r e proceeding t o b r i n g an a c t i o n i n c o u r t under p r o v i s i o n of t h i s a c t , must r e s o r t t o such procedure w i t h i n t h e time s p e c i f i e d i n h i s c o n t r a c t o r , i f no time i s s p e c i f i e d , w i t h i n n i n e t y (90) days a f t e r t h e q u e s t i o n o r d i s p u t e *.I' has a r i s e n ** The c o n t r a c t between t h e p a r t i e s c o n t a i n s a p r o v i s i o n r e q u i r i n g : " I n c a s e any claim o r d i s p u t e a r i s e s between t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o , r e s p e c t i n g any m a t t e r p e r t a i n i n g said claim o r dispute s h a l l t o t h i s agreement be r e f e r r e d t o t h e Commission by t h e c o n t r a c t o r i n w r i t i n g , and a r e q u e s t f o r a h e a r i n g w i t h i n a p e r i o d of s i x t y (60) days a f t e r t h e claim o r d i s p u t e h a s *.If arisen *** ** The S t a t e argues Zook's cause of a c t i o n , i f any, a r o s e a s of t h e J u l y 27, 1967 o r d e r from t h e D i r e c t o r t o s t o p work i n t h e a r e a of t h e mining c l a i m s . The S t a t e urges t h e c o n t r a c t l i m i t s t h e time f o r f i l i n g of a c l a i m t o w i t h i n t h e 60 day p e r i o d following t h e d a t e of t h e d e l a y . It claims t h e September 6 , 1967 l e t t e r from Zook's g e n e r a l manager f a i l s t o s t a t e a c l a i m i n t h a t i t does not contain demand f o r a d d i t i o n a l compensation, n o r does e x p r e s s an i n t e n t i o n t o submit such a c l a i m a t any 1 a . t e r d a t e . I t a l s o n o t e s t h e l e t t e r does n o t d i r e c t i t s e l f t o t h e Commission. These a l l e g e d f a c t s a r e urged a s grounds f o r f i n d i n g t h a t Zook time f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t a c l a i m w i t h i n the/provided, i . e . 60 days. This Court i s i n agreement w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s conclusion t h a t these contentions a r e t o t a l l y without merit. i s n e i t h e r b a r r e d on s t a t u t o r y nor c o n t r a c t u a l grounds. The claim The l e t t e r from Zook was addressed t o a M r . Richard B . Dundas, D i s t r i c t Eng i n e e r , S t a t e Highway Commission, and was s e n t approximately 40 days a f t e r t h e work stoppage o r d e r was promulgated. Zook's l e t t e r c l e a r l y expressed t h e c o n t r a c t o r ' s concern regarding t h e e f f e c t of t h e d e l a y s on t h e o v e r - a l l p r o j e c t . A 'i. T h e r e a f t e r t h e S t a t e considered t h e m a t t e r , a u d i t e d Zook's r e c o r d s r e g a r d i n g i t s c l a i m f o r standby expenses and h e l d s e v e r a l h e a r i n g s , a t Zook's r e q u e s t , regarding t h e v a r i e d claims of Zook. To d a t e , Zook h a s r e c e i v e d o n l y an o r a l d e n i a l of i t s claims on February 26, 1973, by t h e D i r e c t o r of t h e S t a t e Highway Department. L i t i g a t i o n was commenced A p r i l 20, 1973 and i s c l e a r l y n o t b a r r e d by t h e c o n t r a c t u a l l i m i t a t i o n s nor t h e s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n s . The l o g i c a l r u l e , and t h e r u l e adopted i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s , i s t h a t a c l a i m o r d i s p u t e ARISES a t t h e time t h e S t a t e submits a f i n a l e s t i m a t e t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r f o r h i s approval o r r e j e c t i o n . C o n t r a c t i n g , I n c . v. S t a t e of New York, 280 N.Y.S.2d Waterman v. S t a t e of New York, 241 N.Y.S.2d Terry 450 (1967); 314 (1963). To d a t e , no such f i n a l e s t i m a t e has e v e r been submitted t o Zook by t h e S t a t e . The S t a t e ' s r e l i a n c e on s t a t u t o r y o r c o n t r a c t u a l l i m i t a t i o n s i s a l s o without m e r i t f o r t h e reason t h e S t a t e , through i t s own a c t i o n s , l e d Zook t o b e l i e v e t h a t i t s claim would r e c e i v e t i m e l y a t t e n t i o n and would be reviewed by t h e S t a t e pending an administ r a t i v e d e c i s i o n on i t s m e r i t s . Zook r e l i e d upon t h e a s s u r a n c e s i n t h e S t a t e ' s l e t t e r d a t e d September 12, 1967, t h a t t h e S t a t e would g i v e f u l l c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o a l l f a c t o r s r e l a t i v e t o t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o o b t a i n right-of-way. Clearly, the S t a t e i s foreclosed from r a i s i n g a s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s defense given t h e above f a c t s . The S t a t e a l s o u r g e s t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence i n t h e r e c o r d of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o support a f i n d i n g t h e r e was a breach of c o n t r a c t upon which t o base an award of damages t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r , Zook. This Court, i n detemining a s i m i l a r d i s p u t e , h e l d t h e f a i l u r e t o o b t a i n highway right-of-way i s a m a t e r i a l breach o f c o n t r a c t which, i f i t d e l a y s a c o n t r a c t o r , w i l l s u s t a i n an award of damages. Laas v. Montana Highway Comm'n, 157 Mont. 121, 125, 132,483 P.2d 699 (1971). The Standard S p e c i f i c a t i o n s p o r t i o n of t h e c o n t r a c t e n t e r e d i n t o h e r e provides i n p a r t : "07.17 FURNISHING RIGHT-OF-WAY. A l l right-of-way f o r t h e roadway s h a l l be provided by t h e Commission w i t h o u t c o s t t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r . A l l right-of-way may n o t have been obtained a t t h e time when t h e b i d s a r e opened and t h e proposal c o n s i d e r e d , and i n t h a t c a s e t h e award w i l l n o t be made u n t i l t h e e n t i r e right-of-way h a s been o b t a i n e d . The 'submission of a b i d w i l l be c o n s t r u e d a s an acceptance of t h i s c o n d i t i o n by t h e b i d d e r , and no c l a i m f o r damage o r l o s s of unavoidable d e l a y i n s e c u r i n g right-of-way w i l l be considered by t h e Commission. I f t h e c o n t r a c t i s m a t e r i a l l y delayed because of right-of-way d i f f i c u l t i e s , due c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i l l be given by t h e Commission i n extending t h e c o n t r a c t time t o make proper allowances t h e r e f o r . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) The c o n t r a c t between Zook and t h e S t a t e was signed n e a r l y f o u r months p r i o r t o t h e S t a t e ' s o b t a i n i n g of t h e right-of-way i n t h e a r e a of t h e mining claims. Considering s i m i l a r evidence a s e s t a b l i s h - - ing a breach of c o n t r a c t , t h i s Court noted i n Laas: "There i s l i t t l e q u e s t i o n b u t t h a t t h e r e was a breach of c o n t r a c t by t h e S t a t e i n f a i l i n g t o s e c u r e t h e right-of-way a c r o s s t h e Emery p r o p e r t y . The s t a n d a r d s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , one of t h e c o n t r a c t i n g documents, s p e c i f i c a l l y provided t h a t t h e S t a t e would provide a l l of t h e right-of-way f o r t h e roadway w i t h o u t c o s t t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r . The same document f u r t h e r provided t h a t i f t h e right-of-way had n o t been o b t a i n e d a t t h e time when t h e b i d s were opened, t h e award would n o t be made u n t i l t h e e n t i r e right-of-way had been o b t a i n e d . C l e a r l y , t h e p l a i n t i f f had a r i g h t t o assume, when he r e c e i v e d t h e award and t h e o r d e r t o proceed, t h a t t h e right-of-way had been o b t a i n e d , o r would be obtained w i t h o u t d e t r i m e n t t o him. *** "The s t a n d a r d s p e c i f i c a t i o n s t a k e i n t o account t h a t t h e r e may be d e l a y between t h e time t h e b i d s a r e opened and t h e award i s .made because of unavoidable d i f f i c u l t i e s i n s e c u r i n g t h e right-of-way, and f u r t h e r provide t h a t no c l a i m f o r damages o r l o s s of a n t i c i p a t e d p r o f i t s on t h a t account may be made. But, no p r o v i s i o n i s made f o r d e l a y i n s e c u r i n g right-of-way a f t e r t h e award has been made and t h e o r d e r t o proceed given. The s t a n d a r d s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f u r t h e r provide t h a t i f t h e c o n t r a c t i s m a t e r i a l l y delayed because of right-of-way d i f f i c u l t i e s , due c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i l l be g i v e n by t h e S t a t e i n extending t h e c o n t r a c t t i m e t o make proper allowance t h e r e f o r . T h i s may a s s i s t t h e c o n t r a c t o r i n avoiding t h e p e n a l t y c l a u s e , b u t i t i s a f a r c r y from compensating him f o r i d l e d men and equipment because of d e l a y brought about by t h e f a i l u r e of t h e S t a t e t o s e c u r e t h e right-of-way b e f o r e awarding t h e c o n t r a c t , o r i n r e a s o n a b l e time t h e r e a f t e r ." The d i s t r i c t c o u r t determined i n i t s c o n c l u s i o n s of law t h a t "The S t a t e of Montana m a t e r i a l l y breached i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h Zook and t h e damages which Zook s u f f e r e d t h e r e b y were a d i r e c t and proximate r e s u l t of such breach." s u p p o r t s such a c o n c l u s i o n and i t w i l l Court. It i s c l e a r t h e record n o t be s e t a s i d e by t h i s Zook a c t e d i n r e l i a n c e upon t h e S t a t e ' s i m p l i c i t r e p r e - s e n t a t i o n t h e right-of-way had been o b t a i n e d and s u f f e r e d g r e a t I expense a s a r e s u l t . The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t Zook assembled ample equipment t o complete t h i s p r o j e c t i n t h e time i n t e n d e d . Testimony from Zook's and t h e S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t Zook was a competent and e f f i c i e n t highway c o n t r a c t o r and t h i s p r o j e c t was performed a s e f f i c i e n t l y a s p o s s i b l e , under t h e c i r cumstances. Zook proceeded w i t h g r a d i n g a c t i v i t i e s even though f o r e c l o s e d from o p e r a t i o n i n two c r i t i c a l and t h e r a i l r o a d o v e r p a s s . a r e a s , Frontage Road No. 4 Zook a l s o worked a s much a s p o s s i b l e d u r i n g t h e w i n t e r shutdown a s allowed by t h e c o n t r a c t , and t h e r e b y made some u s e of t h e equipment h e l d on t h e p r o j e c t f o r completion i n the spring. Thus, Zook made e v e r y r e a s o n a b l e a t t e m p t t o m i t i g a t e i t s damages under t h e S t a t e ' s breach. Having determined t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o t i m e l y r e l o c a t e t h e u t i l i t y l i n e s and o b t a i n right-of-way through t h e mining c l a i m s was a b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t t h a t materially damaged Zook, t h e q u e s t i o n now becomes t h e p r o p e r measure of t h o s e damages. 17-301, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s : Section "For t h e breach of an o b l i g a t i o n a r i s i n g from c o n t r a c t , t h e measure of damages, except where otherwise e x p r e s s l y provided by t h i s code, i s t h e amount which w i l l compensate t h e p a r t y aggrieved f o r a l l detriment proximately caused thereby, o r which, i n t h e o r d i n a r y course of t h i n g s , would be l i k e l y t o r e s u l t therefrom." For damages t o be r e c o v e r a b l e under s e c t i o n 17-301, t h e y must "have been w i t h i n t h e contemplation of t h e p a r t i e s when they e n t e r e d i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t , and such a s might n a t u r a l l y be expected t o r e s u l t from i t s v i o l a t i o n . " Myers v. Bender, 46 Mont. 497, 508, 129 P. 330. O a p p e a l , Zook seeks compensation f o r t h r e e s e p a r a t e n a r e a s of damage: 1 ) i n c r e a s e d c o s t s of performing t h e c o n t r a c t ; 2) standby c o s t s f o r i d l e d equipment; and 3) l o s t p r o f i t s . c o n s t i t u t e t h e proper measure of damages under t h e f a c t s . c o n t r a c t was l e t f o r almost $3,000,000. These The I t involved complete c o n s t r u c - t i o n of over s i x m i l e s of i n t e r s t a t e highway. A t one time o r a n o t h e r , Zook had approximately $3,000,000 worth of equipment on t h e job. It i s c l e a r t h e l o s s e s claimed by Zook were f o r e s e e a b l e and would n a t u r a l l y flow from a s u b s t a n t i a l d e l a y i n performance of t h e c o n t r a c t . The d e l a y t h a t d i d occur was caused by t h e S t a t e , t h e r e f o r e t h e s e l o s s e s a r e p r o p e r l y compensable under s e c t i o n 17-301, R.C.M. 1947. 1) To e s t a b l i s h i t s claim f o r i n c r e a s e d performance c o s t s , Zook u t i l i z e d t h e a c t u a l b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s maintained d u r i n g i t s work on t h e Montana C i t y P r o j e c t . These r e c o r d s were introduced and admitted without o b j e c t i o n during t r i a l . Zook's r e c o r d s con- t a i n e d a c t u a l c o s t s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e pay items w i t h i n t h e S t a t e ' s contract. Zook l i m i t e d i t s cla.im t o n i n e c r i t i c a l items of highway c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s t h a t were i n f l u e n c e d by t h e S t a . t e ls breach. Zook's r e c o r d s show i t c o s t Zook $1,440,483 i n s t r a i g h t f i e l d c o s t s t o perform t h e work. $166,088 I t a l s o i n c u r r e d i n d i r e c t job c o s t s of and a g e n e r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e expense of $158,408. Payments by t h e S t a t e f o r t h e s e s e v e r a l items t o t a l e d $1,146,293.42, r e s u l t i n g i n Zook's l o s s of $618,685.58 on i t s performance of t h e contract. Zook introduced s e v e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e methods of determining i t s loss. One method c o n s i s t e d of an a u d i t of c o s t s and revenues f o r t h e e n t i r e job i n c l u d i n g equipment ownership expense. t h i s method, Zook s u f f e r e d a l o s s of $652,542,85. Under Another method c a l c u l a t e d t h e reasonable c o s t of performing t h e c o n t r a c t and compared it t o t h e S t a t e payments. Escalated c o s t s i n e i g h t areas of job performance were compared a g a i n s t S t a t e revenues. The r e s u l t showed a l o s s t o Zook of $663,026.66. Methods of computing t h e amount of damages may v a r y from case t o case. Under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , t h e Court b e l i e v e s t h e r e s u l t d e r i v e d from Zook's a c t u a l c o s t r e c o r d s i s t h e b e s t evidence of Zook's a c t u a l l o s s . W mention t h e o t h e r methods and e t h e l o s s e s they show only t o r e i n f o r c e t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e l o s s shown by Zook's a c t u a l c o s t r e c o r d s i s reasonably c e r t a i n and accurate. 2) Zook claims damages of $613,387 f o r equipment standby. The c l a i m i s based on a l i s t of approximately 100 p i e c e s of equipment i d l e d because o f t h e S t a t e ' s breach. Standby time was computed by examining Zook's b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s t o determine t h e a c t u a l opera t i n g and r e p a i r hours f o r each p i e c e of equipment i n each week of a 10 month p e r i o d running from August 1967 t o May 1968. hours were s u b t r a c t e d from a base of d i f f e r e n c e was standby. 40 hours p e r week. These The T h i s method of computing standby time was n e c e s s a r y s i n c e n e i t h e r Zook nor t h e S t a t e maintained standby r e c o r d s during t h e Montana C i t y P r o j e c t . I n t h e absence of such r e c o r d s , t h e use of a 40 hour week a s t h e measure of standby time was r e a s o n a b l e under t h e circumstances. shifts Zook planned t o schedule 2 10-hour work 6 days a week o r a t l e a s t 2 8-hour s h i f t s 5 days a week. T h i s , t h e evidence shows, i s common p r a c t i c e i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n industry. Compared t o t h e a n t i c i p a t e d o p e r a t i n g hours of 80 t o 120 hours p e r week, 40 hours i s n o t an a r b i t r a r y g u i d e l i n e . To e s t a b l i s h t h e c o s t of t h e standby time, Zook used 50 p e r c e n t of t h e h o u r l y r e n t a l r a t e s promulgated by t h e Montana Highway Department and approved by t h e S t a t e Highway Commission. There was testimony i n t h e r e c o r d s t a t i n g t h e s e r a t e s were r e a s o n a b l e and below p r e v a l e n t r e n t a l r a t e s a t tha.t time. During t r i a l , counsel f o r t h e S t a t e r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t i t could n o t f i n d c e r t a i n p i e c e s of equipment shown on Zook's r e c o r d s a s working on t h e Montana C i t y P r o j e c t . Zook d e l e t e d and e l i m i n a t e d standby claims f o r s e v e r a l i t e m s , reducing t h e damages claimed by some $66,000. Zook's c l a i m f o r equipment standby c o s t s of $613,387 i s reasonable and amply supported by t h e r e c o r d . 3) Z o o k , f i n a l l y , a s k s f o r an award of l o s t p r o f i t s on t h e c o n t r a c t i n t h e amount of $88,249. T h i s amount i s e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e 5 p e r c e n t p r o f i t Zook a n t i c i p a t e d when i t b i d on t h e job. The r u l e i n Montana a s s t a t e d by t h i s Court i n Cruse v. Clawson, 137 Mont. 439, 448, 352 P.2d 989, and c i t e d i n -9Laas "* * i s t h a t a party: J may r e c o v e r f o r l o s s of p r o f i t s where i t i s ; shown t h a t such l o s s i s t h e n a t u r a l and d i r e c t r e s u l t of t h e a c t of t h e defendant complained of and t h a t such amount i s c e r t a i n and n o t s p e c u l a t i v e . " The r e c o r d i s r e p l e t e w i t h testimony t h a t Zook w a s a competent and e f f i c i e n t highway c o n t r a c t o r and t h a t i t performed t h e p r o j e c t a s e f f i c i e n t l y a s p o s s i b l e under t h e circumstances. Highway c o n s t r u c t i o n i s a hazardous p u r s u i t w i t h no g u a r a n t e e t h a t a p r o f i t w i l l b e r e a l i z e d on any p a r t i c u l a r job. Under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , however, we a r e convinced Zook should r e c o v e r i t s anticipated profit. The d e l a y s , caused by t h e S t a t e , g r e a t l y increased operating costs. They s e r i o u s l y d i s r u p t e d Zook's schedule and moved t h e p r o j e c t i n t o h i g h e r wage p e r i o d s and bad weather. The evidence showed Zook had t h e necessary equipment and e x p e r t i s e t o perform t h e c o n t r a c t i n a workmanlike manner were i t n o t f o r t h e S t a t e ' s breach. Under t h e s e f a c t s , Zook should r e c e i v e t h e b e n e f i t of i t s b a r g a i n . Zook a l s o a l l e g e s t h a t i t s l o s s e s on t h e Montana C i t y P r o j e c t forced i t t o s e l l much of i t s equipment, t h u s d e c r e a s i n g i t s p r o f i t s f o r s e v e r a l subsequent y e a r s . W concur w i t h t h e e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h a t t h e evidence a s t o t h e s e a l l e g e d l o s s e s i s vague and s p e c u l a t i v e . W f i n d no b a s i s i n t h e r e c o r d f o r an award of e damages f o r l o s s of f u t u r e p r o f i t s . T h i s Court i n Spackman v . Ralph M. Parsons, Co., 147 Mont. 500, 509, 414 P. 2d 918 (1966), s a i d t h e v e r d i c t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l be s e t a s i d e i f : ** i t can be shown w i t h r e a s o n a b l e c o n v i c t i o n (3) made a mistake t h a t the [finder of f a c t ] of law o r f a c t ; (4) based i t s f i n d i n g s on a m i s understanding of law o r f a c t JC Jc." *** * Where a v e r d i c t does n o t appear t o have r e s u l t e d from p a s s i o n and p r e j u d i c e , and any e r r o r may be ascerta.ined by mathematical c a l c u l a t i o n , t h i s Court may p r o p e r l y modify t h e judgment w i t h o u t reversing it. See: N e s b i t t v . C i t y of B u t t e , 118 Mont. 84,94, 163 P.2d 251; M i l l e r v. Emerson, 120 Mont. 380, 381, 186 P.2d 220; A.T. Klemens & Son v. Reber Plumbing and Heating Co., 139 Mont. 115, 126, 360 P.2d 1005. This Court, a f t e r a review of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law, i s unable t o determine a b a s i s f o r t h e judgment rendered. From t h e r e c o r d we cannot d i s c e r n a b a s i s t h a t s u p p o r t s t h e damages award g i v e n , e i t h e r i n t h e f i r s t judgment o r i n t h e amended judgment which added an a d d i t i o n a l amount i n compensation f o r t r a f f i c c o n t r o l expenses i n c u r r e d . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t was faced w i t h an enormous volume of h i g h l y complex accounting evidence and d e t a i l e d t e c h n i c a l testimony p r e s e n t e d on b e h a l f of Zook and t h e S t a t e . A thorough review of t h e evidence and t h e r e c o r d of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t r i a l of t h i s m a t t e r , l e a d s t h i s Court t o t h e conclusion t h a t Zook i s r i g h t f u l l y e n t i t l e d t o t h e damages s e t f o r t h i n t h i s Opinion, l e s s t h e $140,917 awarded i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . W Concur: e Justices --.".*---- 7, /-*"'- V - Hon. && & C CLL- 4.. Edward T . D u s s a u l t , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T . Harrison. M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n part: I concur i n t h e h o l d i n g o f t h e m a j o r i t y t h a t t h e S t a t e breached t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t and t h a t Zook's c l a i m i s n o t b a r r e d by t h e s p e c i a l s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . I d i s s e n t from t h e amount of damages awarded by t h e majority -- o r a l m o s t 1 0 t i m e s t h e damages awarded $1,320,321.58, by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . T h i s award i s based on Zook's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e d e l a y s r e s u l t i n g from r e l o c a t i o n o f u t i l i t y p o l e s and a c q u i s i t i o n o f right-of-way o v e r mining c l a i m s i n o n e segment o f t h e p r o j e c t c a u s e d a " r i p p l e e f f e c t " on o t h e r segments of t h e p r o j e c t w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t t h e e n t i r e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t as c o n c e i v e d and b i d had t o be changed m a t e r i a l l y which c a u s e d l o s s e s h a l f a g a i n a s g r e a t a s t h e amount of t h e o r i g i n a l b i d and award. I n m view, t h e f o c u s of t h e i s s u e i s whether t h e S t a t e ' s y b r e a c h c a u s e d t h e damages c l a i m e d by Zook. On a p p e a l , t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t i s s i m p l y t o d e t e r mine t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g and judgment. H o l e n s t e i n v . Andrews, 166 Mont. 60, 530 P.2d 476; Kirby v. K e l l y , 1 6 1 Mont. 66, 504 P.2d and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . 683, H e r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h a t o n l y $140,917 of t h e c l a i m e d damages w e r e c a u s e d by t h e S t a t e ' s b r e a c h . The g i s t of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s r e a s o n i n g i s found i n t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t from i t s o p i n i o n : " I t i s t h e o p i n i o n of t h i s C o u r t t h a t b o t h t h e S t a t e and t h e c o n t r a c t o r m i s c a l c u l a t e d t h e t o t a l time allowed f o r t h e completion of t h e c o n t r a c t . There was a n o v e r r u n of 116 d a y s d u e , i n p a r t , t o t h e d e l a y s o c c a s i o n e d by t h e S t a t e i n n o t h a v i n g t h e e n t i r e right-of-way a v a i l a b l e . Work s t a r t e d on J u l y 25, 1967, and t h e complete right-of-way was a v a i l a b l e i n mid-October, 1967. However, d u r i n g t h i s t i m e t h e c o n t r a c t o r w a s a v a i l a b l e t o work on and d i d work on a major p o r t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t . " I n m view, t h e e v i d e n c e , though c o n f l i c t i n g , i s s u f f i c i e n t y t o s u p p o r t t h i s f i n d i n g and judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . would a f f i r m t h e judgment. - 15 - Justice I

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.