Case Title: E F MATELICH CONSTR CO v GOODF

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-05-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-185 I N T H E SUPREME COURT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1982 E. F. MATELICH CONTRUCTION C O M P A N Y a Montana Corporation, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs- G O O D F E L L O W BROTHERS, I N C . , e t a l . , Defendants and Respondents. STATE O F MONTANA, Cross-Claimant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Mineral, The Honorable James B. Wheeiis, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Donald R. Murray; Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn and P h i l l i p s , K a l i s p e l l , Montana For Respondents: Page Wellcome, Bozeman, Montana Donald A. Douglas, Highway Legal Dept., Helena, Xontana Submitted on B r i e f s : February 18, 1 9 8 2 Decided : MAY 6 1982 Filed: '1982 . * 0 M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . P l a i n t i f f s u b c o n t r a c t o r sued t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r and t h e S t a t e f o r damages f o r breach of its s u b c o n t r a c t t o c o n t r u c t b r i d g e s and c o n c r e t e work on a highway p r o j e c t . A t t h e conclu- s i o n of t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r I s case-in-chief , t h e District Court d i s m i s s e d t h e a c t i o n on t h e ground t h a t p l a i n t i f f had shown no r i g h t to r e l i e f under t h e f a c t s and l a w . Following d e n i a l of its motion f o r a new t r i a l , t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r a p p e a l s . W e r e v e r s e . On November 23, 1970, d e f e n d a n t Goodfellow Bros., Inc., t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r , c o n t r a c t e d w i t h d e f e n d a n t S t a t e of Montana to c o n s t r u c t a segment of i n t e r s t a t e highway i n Mineral County, Montana. T h e r e a f t e r Good f e l l o w c o n t r a c t e d w i t h E. F. M a t e l i c h C o n s t r u c t i o n Co., t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r , f o r t h e c o n s t r u c - t i o n of c e r t a i n b r i d g e s and c o n c r e t e work on t h e p r o j e c t . P r i o r to s u b m i t t i n g its bid to Goodfellow, Matelich o b t a i n e d a b i d f o r t h e c o n c r e t e work from R o b e r t OIConner, a spe- c i a l i s t i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of c u r b s and s i d e w a l k s . The bid sub- m i t t e d by OIConner s t a t e d t h a t t h e estimates g i v e n were con- t i n g e n t upon c o n c r e t e being a v a i l a b l e a t t h e job s i t e . M a t e l i c h a c c e p t e d O I C o n n e r l s bid on A p r i l 12, 1971. The c o n t r a c t between Matelich and Good f e l l o w provided t h a t t h e work was t o be completed i n 270 c a l e n d a r days. The c o n s t r u c - t i o n work began i n t h e s p r i n g of 1971 b u t t h e c o n c r e t e work was n o t completed u n t i l l a t e f a l l of 1973 because n e c e s s a r y prepara- t o r y work had n o t been completed by Goodfellow u n t i l September, 1973. When t h e p r e p a r a t o r y work w a s f i n a l l y done, t h e r e w a s no l o n g e r a s o u r c e of c o n c r e t e a v a i l a b l e a t t h e job site. By r e a s o n t h e r e o f , OIConner r e f u s e d to perform t h e c o n c r e t e work under h i s agreement w i t h Matelich. There had been a s o u r c e of c o n c r e t e a v a i l a b l e a t t h e job s i t e d u r i n g t h e 1971 work season and f o r most of t h e 1972 s e a s o n . S i n c e OtConner r e f u s e d to perform t h e work, M a t e l i c h was forced t o complete t h e c o n c r e t e work i t s e l f . Af ter t h e work was completed , Mate1 i c h brought s u i t a g a i n s t Goodfellow and t h e S t a t e of Montana i n t h e District Court o f Mineral County. M a t e l i c h a l l e g e d t h a t it was prevented from performing its work w i t h i n t h e t i m e p e r i o d s p e c i f i e d i n its s u b c o n t r a c t w i t h Goodfellow because t h e work schedule f o r t h e p r o j e c t had been changed by Goodfellow and t h e S t a t e . M a t e l i c h s o u g h t damages f o r i n c r e a s e d costs a l l e g e d l y caused by Good f e l l o w ' s breach o f its s u b c o n t r a c t i n n o t performing t h e pre- p a r a t o r y work w i t h i n t h e t i m e p e r i o d s p e c i f i e d i n its s u b c o n t r a c t . M a t e l i c h s o u g h t damages to t h e e x t e n t of t h e d i f - f e r e n c e between t h e a c t u a l costs it i n c u r r e d i n completing t h e c o n c r e t e work and t h e bid p r i c e submitted by O'Conner. M a t e l i c h d i s m i s s e d its claim a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e p r i o r to t r i a l , b u t t h e S t a t e remained a p a r t y on Good f e l l o w ' s cross-claim f o r indemnif i- c a t i o n a g a i n s t it. A bench t r i a l was h e l d on August 21, 1980. O'Conner t e s t i f i e d as a w i t n e s s f o r M a t e l i c h , and t h e agreement e n t e r e d i n t o between Matelich and OIConner was admitted i n t o e v i d e n c e . Evidence was also p r e s e n t e d r e g a r d i n g t h e a c t u a l costs i n c u r r e d b y M a t e l i c h i n completing t h e c o n c r e t e work. A t t h e c l o s e of M a t e l i c h ' s case-in-chief t h e District Court g r a n t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' motion to d i s m i s s because it found t h a t t h e r e w a s no v a l i d e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e c o u r t to e s t a b l i s h damages. The D i s t r i c t Court determined t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e p e r t a i n - i n g to O'Connerls bid p r i c e could n o t be used to e s t a b l i s h damages because OIConner had n o t p r e q u a l i f i e d w i t h t h e Montana S t a t e Department of Highways a s r e q u i r e d by s p e c i f i c a t i o n s adopted by t h e Montana S t a t e Highway Commission which were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t between t h e S t a t e of Montana and Goodfellow. The terms of t h a t c o n t r a c t were i n t u r n i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t between Good f e l l o w and M a t e l i c h . The sole i s s u e is whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n based upon its d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e e v i - dence was i n s u f f i c i e n t to e s t a b l i s h damages. The p a r t i e s d i s a g r e e as t o whether OIConner was r e q u i r e d t o p r e q u a l i f y under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s c a s e . W e f i n d it u n n e c e s s a r y t o r e s o l v e t h a t i s s u e i n d e c i d i n g whether t h e e v i - dence p r e s e n t e d by Matelich was s u f f i c i e n t to e s t a b l i s h damages. The f o l l o w i n g s t a t u t e e s t a b l i s h e s t h e measure of damages f o r breach of c o n t r a c t : "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, e x c e p t when o t h e r w i s e e x p r e s s l y provided by t h i s code, is 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 t h e d e t r i m e n t which was p r o x i m a t e l y caused t h e r e b y or i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e of t h i n g s would be l i k e l y to r e s u l t therefrom. Damages which are n o t c l e a r l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e i n b o t h t h e i r n a t u r e and o r i g i n cannot be recovered f o r a breach of c o n t r a c t . " S e c t i o n 27-1-311, MCA. With r e g a r d to e v i d e n c e of damages we have s t a t e d : "While e x a c t proof of damage is n o t n e c e s s a r y t h e r e must be some e v i - dence from which t h e amount may be determined ." Brown v. F i r s t Fed. Sav. & L. A s s l n of Great F a l l s ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 154 Mont. 79, 88, 460 P.2d 97, 102. In t h i s case t h e r e w a s e v i d e n c e from which t h e amount of damages could have been e s t a b l i s h e d . 0' C o n n e r l s t e s t i m o n y and t h e agreement between 0' Conner and M a t e l i c h were e v i d e n c e of t h e r e a s o n a b l e cost a t which t h e work could have been performed had it been done a t an earlier d a t e when t h e r e was still a s o u r c e of c o n c r e t e a v a i l a b l e a t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n site. A d d i t i o n a l l y , M a t e l i c h t e s t i f i e d t h a t Goodfellow p a i d him on t h e b a s i s of O I C o n n e r l s bid which is some i n d i c a t i o n of t h e r e a s o n a b l e c o s t of t h e c o n c r e t e work. The d e f e n d a n t s do n o t contend t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e should n o t have been a d m i t t e d . T h e i r o n l y argument is t h a t because OIConner w a s n o t p r e q u a l i f i e d e v i d e n c e of h i s bid p r i c e could n o t be used to e s t a b l i s h damages. The D i s t r i c t Court agreed w i t h t h i s conten- t i o n and held as a m a t t e r of l a w t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e could n o t be used t o d e t e r m i n e damages. The D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . 0' Conner was a s p e c i a l i s t i n c u r b , sidewalks and f l a t c o n c r e t e work w i t h 26 y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e . H i s e x p e r t o p i n i o n evidence was a d m i s s i b l e to e s t a b l i s h t h e r e a s o n a b l e cost of t h e c o n c r e t e work under t h e s u b c o n t r a c t w i t h o u t r e g a r d to whether he was p r e q u a l i f i e d t o per- form t h e c o n c r e t e work h i m s e l f . OIConnerls testimony and bid c r e a t e d a f a c t u a l i s s u e on damages f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e District Court. Such evidence precluded d i s m i s s a l under Rule 4 1 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., f o r f a i l u r e of proof of damages. Reversed and remanded f o r a new t r i a l . Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: -