GYRION CONSTR CO v SANDERS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13018 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE Oh' M N A A OTN 1975 GYKION CONSTKUCTION CO . , .TNC. , P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , -vs KOBEKT J . SANDERS, D e f e l ~ d a n tand A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R o b e r t Sykes, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : H. James Oleson a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l , Montana F o r Respondent: Hash, J e l l i s o n and O ' B r i e n , K a l i s p e l l , Montana Kenneth E. O ' B r i e n a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed : I c. e, September 8 , 1975 2:; 2 0 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , F l a t h e a d County, i n f a v o r o f p l a i n t i f f Gyrion C o n s t r u c t i o n Co., I n c . i n t h e amount o f $1,200. On F e b r u a r y 1 7 , 1971, t h e r e s i d e n c e of d e f e n d a n t R o b e r t J. Sanders s u f f e r e d e x t e n s i v e f i r e damage. Sanders' insurance a g e n t proceeded t o a d j u s t t h e l o s s . view o f t h e c o l d w e a t h e r In and t h e need f o r immediate r e p a i r o f t h e r e s i d e n c e , t h e a d j u s t o r contacted p l a i n t i f f , a c o n t r a c t o r , w i t h t h e consent of Sanders. On F e b r u a r y 1 8 , 1971, Gyrion began r e s t o r a t i o n work on t h e Sanders home. S a n d e r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was u n d e r t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t Gyrion had been h i r e d by t h e a d j u s t o r , b u t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h a t S a n d e r s , by a l l o w i n g Gyri-on t o b e g i n work on h i s home, had i n f a c t h i r e d Gyrion. A t t h e t i m e o f t h e f i r e t h e Sanders home was i n s u r e d f o r a maximum $20,000 f i r e l o s s . Because t h e e x t e n t o f damage t o t h e home was unknown u n t i l t o r n down, no e s t i m a t e s were made o r r e quested. A t t h e t i m e Gyrion was employed a l l p a r t i e s b e l i e v e d t h e e n t i r e c o s t o f r e p a i r would b e under t h e maximum f i r e l o s s coverage. Gyrion a g r e e d t o r e p a i r t h e f i r e damage on t h e b a s i s o f c o s t of l a b o r and m a t e r i a l s p l u s 15%. It a l s o a g r e e d t h a t Sanders c o u l d perform work on t h e r e s i d e n c e and be c r e d i t e d by Gyrion f o r t h a t work. Sanders t e s t i f i e d t h a t a s work p r o g r e s s e d h e informed Gyrion n o t t o exceed t h e $20,000 l i m i t . Gyrion d e n i e d t h i s . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t made no f i n d i n g on S a n d e r s ' a l l e g e d g e n e r a l l i m i t a t i o n o f c o s t , b u t d i d f i n d t h a t p r i o r t o t h e p a i n t i n g of t h e p r e m i s e s Sanders had n o t i f i e d Gyrion t h a t any p a i n t i n g s h o u l d b e done by Gyrion o n l y i f t h e p a i n t i n g would come w i t h i n t h e maximum c o v e r a g e o f t h e p o l i c y . The r e p a i r work was completed on about A p r i l 30, 1971. During t h e period of r e p a i r i n g t h e home Sanders on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s , t o g e t h e r w i t h h i s w i f e , requested information a s t o t h e amount and c o s t of t h e r e p a i r s . However Gyrion f a i l e d t o f u r n i s h any itemized l i s t o r accounting of expenses u n t i l November 1971. A d r a f t from t h e i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r i n t h e amount of $20,000 was d e l i v e r e d t o Sanders i n June 1971, who immediately endorsed i t and d e l i v e r e d i t t o Gyrion. When Gyrion f i n a l l y d i d send t h e b i l l , i t exceeded t h e maximum i n s u r a n c e coverage ($20,000) i n t h e amount of $4,284.69. Sanders was c r e d i t e d w i t h t h e sum of $939.55 f o r l a b o r performed by him, and was a l s o given c e r t a i n o t h e r u n s p e c i f i e d c r e d i t s , l e a v i n g a b a l a n c e claimed by p l a i n t i f f of $2,914.71, a s due and owing over and above t h e $20,000 i n s u r a n c e coverage. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found on a quantum meruit b a s i s t h a t p l a i n t i f f was e n t i t l e d t o $1,200 a s t h e r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e of t h e p a i n t i n g , and c o s t s . Defendant a p p e a l s and p l a i n t i f f c r o s s a p p e a l s . A p o r t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s opening s t a t e m e n t and response by both counsel d e f i n e s t h e i s s u e t r i e d t o t h e c o u r t : ; ''THE COURT: k A k The i s s u e t o be determined h e r e ; is whether o r n o t any work done i n excess of t h e i n s u r a n c e coverage was by agreement and understanding of t h e p a r t i e s t o b e covered by t h e f i r s i n s u r a n c e maximum l i m i t s , o r i f any a d d i t i o n a l amount was t o b e paid by t h e Defendant. N w i s t h a t a c o r r e c t statement o of t h e i s s u e s ? 4b O'BRIE'N: Your Honor, 1 b e l i e v e t h a t i s a c o r r e c t statement of t h e i s s u e s a s we d i s c u s s e d them, I b e l i e v e , i n Chambers, t h a t t h e r e i s no q u a r r e l a s t o t h e amount of work t h a t was done, t h e i s s u e i s whether o r n o t t h e Defendant was l i a b l e t o pay for i t o r whether t h e r e was a $20,000 l i m i t on t h e sum t h e P l a i n t i f f was t o r e c e i v e . "MR. OLESON: stated. That i s c o r r e c t , w i t h what M. 0 ' ~ r i e n u s t r j "THE COURT: Very w e l l , l e t t h e r e c o r d show and on t h a t b a s i s , c a l l your f i r s t w i t n e s s . I t A p o r t i o n of t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 3 , f i n d s : h hat p l a i n t i f f agreed t o r e p a i r s a i d home from t h e f i r e l o s s on t h e b a s i s o f c o s t of l a b o r and m a t e r i a l s p l u s 15%.I ' I t s f i n d i n g of f a c t .No. 7 . s t a t e s : II That p r i o r t o i n s t a l l a t i o n of c e r t a i n bathroom f i x t u r e s , and p r i o r t o t h e p a i n t i n g of s a i d premises, t h e defendant had n o t i f i e d t h e p l a i n t i f f t h a t any p a i n t i n g should be done by t h e p l a i n t i f f only i f t h e same would come w i t h i n t h e maximum coverage of s a i d p o l i c y . 11 The c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g No. 1 2 s e t s f o r t h : hat t h e b i l l i n g exceeded t h e maximum i n s u r a n c e coverage i n t h e amount of $4,284.69. That defendant was c r e d i t e d w i t h t h e sum of $939.55 f o r work and l a b o r performed a s c a r r i e d on p l a i n t i f f ' s r e c o r d s . That i n a d d i t i o n t h e r e t o , defendant was given c e r t a i n o t h e r c r e d i t s , l e a v i n g a b a l a n c e claimed by t h e p l a i n t i f f of $2,914.71 a s due and owing, and t h e amount over and above t h e maximum $20,000 f i r e l o s s coverage. 1' The d i s t r i c t c o u r t then made t h e s e conclusions of law: "2. That i n view of t h e circumstances, p l a i n t i f f and defendant d i d n o t have an e x p r e s s o r implied cont r a c t f o r any d e f i n i t e amount, n o r could any such c o n t r a c t have been e n t e r e d i n t o . "3. That a l l c o s t s i n excess of p o l i c y l i m i t s were f o r r e a s o n a b l e and necessary m a t e r i a l s and l a b o r ; b u t t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f i s e n t i t l e d t o be paid on a quantum meruit b a s i s . That t h e defendant would be u n j u s t l y e n r i c h e d i f he were permitted t o enjoy t h e r e s u l t of a l l of such s e r v i c e s and l a b o r without paying a reasonable and n e c e s s a r y sum f o r same. That a r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e of t h e p a i n t i n g on a quantum meruit b a s i s i s t h e sum o f $2,139.55. That defendant i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e work and l a b o r performed by t h e defendant f o r p l a i n t i f f of $939.55, l e a v i n g an amount due and owing p l a i n t i f f by defendant of t h e sum of $1,200." The p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t p l a i n t i f f proceeded t o work under a c o s t p l u s c o n t r a c t f o r m a t e r i a l and l a b o r p l u s 15%. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t s o found i n i t s f i n d i n g No. 3. Then, t h e c o u r t found i n i t s f i n d i n g N o . 7 t h a t p l a i n t i f f had been n o t i f i e d by defendant n o t t o do t h e p a i n t i n g i f i t would i n c r e a s e t h e c o s t i n excess of p o l i c y limits. The c o u r t f u r t h e r found i n i t s f i n d i n g N o . 12 t h a t defendant had been given a l l c r e d i t s due him by p l a i n t i f f ' s r e c o r d s and r e duced t h e b i l l i n g from $4,284.69 t o $2,914.71. The amount $2,914.71 was i n excess of t h e p o l i c y l i m i t . The c o u r t ' s conclusion of law No. 2 seems t o s a y , i n view of t h e i s s u e being t r i e d , t h a t t h e r e was no top amount on t h e c o s t plus contract. The l a s t phrase of conclusion of law No. 2, a s t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of such a c o n t r a c t , seems t o b e s u r p l u s a g e a s i t would c e r t a i n l y have been p o s s i b l e t o r e s t r i c t t h e c o n t r a c t t o a t o t a l sum of $20,000. Conclusion of law No. 3 f l i e s i n t h e f a c e of t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e c o u r t . W cannot apply quantum meruit t o a l l c o s t s e i n excess of t h e i n s u r a n c e coverage because i t has been determined t h a t t h e p a r t i e s have a c o n t r a c t [ c o s t p l u s 15%] w i t h no agreed upper l i m i t . on t h e t h e o r y of quantum meruit (which simply means he deserves") contract. A recovery W e cannot now imply a c o n t r a c t by law. II a s much a s i s based on a c o n t r a c t implied i n law o r q u a s i - The o b l i g a t i o n i n such a c o n t r a c t a r i s e s n o t from consent of t h e p a r t i e s b u t from t h e law of n a t u r a l j u s t i c e and e q u i t y , and i s based on t h e d o c t r i n e of u n j u s t enrichment. Brown v. Thornton, 150 Mont. 150, 156, 432 P.2d 386. The t r i a l c o u r t found i n i t s f i n d i n g No. 7 , t h a t p l a i n t i f f was s p e c i f i c a l l y i n s t r u c t e d by defendant n o t t o p a i n t t h e premises i f t h e c o s t would overrun t h e $20,000 i n s u r a n c e coverage. There can be no c o n t r a c t implied by law a s t o t h e p a i n t i n g , under t h e p r e s e n t f i n d i n g s of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . W a r e unable t o determine from t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e t h i s e Court t h e amount, excluding t h e painting, of t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t overrun which should be p a i d i n f u l l by defendant. The r e c o r d does n o t r e v e a l whether o r n o t t h e $939.55 p l u s $330.43 c r e d i t s given t o defendant by p l a i n t i f f should p r o p e r l y b e a p p l i e d t o reduce t h e c o s t of p a i n t i n g o r t h e g e n e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t , o r b o t h . Therefore we cannot reform t h e judgment h e r e . The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o r e c a l c u l a t e t h e amount of t h e judgment i n con- formity with t h i s opinion. This may be done by a h e a r i n g by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r a new t r i a l , whichever i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e W Concur: e Chief J u s t i c e
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.
