Title: Bingham v. Boreing

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Bingham v. Boreing1990 WY 118799 P.2d 284Case Number: 90-130Decided: 10/24/1990Supreme Court of Wyoming
KEN BINGHAM AND JOANNE 
BINGHAM, 

APPELLANTS 
(PLAINTIFFS),

v.

JIM BOREING; VICKI 
BOREING; AND JOHN AINSWORTH D/B/A AARCO, 

APPELLEES 
(DEFENDANTS).

Appeal from the District 
Court, Laramie County, Edward L. Grant, J.

Donald A. Cole 
of Cole & Cole Law Firm, Cheyenne, for appellants.

Steven F. 
Freudenthal of Herschler, Freudenthal, Salzburg, Bonds & Rideout, P.C., 
Cheyenne, for appellees.

Before 
URBIGKIT, C.J., MACY and GOLDEN, JJ., and RAPER and BROWN, JJ. 
(Ret.).

MACY, Justice.

[¶1]      Appellants Ken 
Bingham and Joanne Bingham filed a breach of contract suit against Appellees Jim 
Boreing and Vicki Boreing, because the roof on the house they purchased from the 
Boreings leaked. The district court concluded the Boreings had not warranted 
that the roof would not leak and denied the Binghams' request for 
relief.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      The Binghams pose 
this issue:

     Did the district court 
commit error in it[]s decision that the sellers/defendants did not breach the 
real estate sales contract by complying with the terms and conditions of the 
contract?

[¶4]      On January 16, 
1989, the Binghams entered into a contract to purchase an existing residential 
dwelling owned by the Boreings. The following provision appeared in an addendum 
to the real estate purchase contract:

     Roof to be inspected 
by a licensed roofer at [Boreings'] expense. Roof to be in insurable condition 
against sudden accidental damage or acts of God, ordinary wear and tear 
excepted. [Boreings] to pay for necessary repairs or replacement, if 
applicable.

[¶5]      John Ainsworth, 
who was hired by the Boreings to inspect the roof, was not licensed by the City 
of Cheyenne to be a roof inspector. He had obtained such a license from the City 
of Cheyenne in 1988, but that license was suspended effective March 28, 1989, 
because he failed to show proof of worker's compensation insurance coverage. 
Ainsworth performed his inspection of the roof on April 20, 1989, and his 
written report of inspection said:

     The dwelling has a # 1 
wood Shake roof, approximately 1 to 2 years of age.

     With proper 
maintenance, roof should be of good service for approximately 20 to 25 
years.

[¶6]      Closing on the 
real estate transaction occurred on May 2, 1989, and the Binghams began 
occupying the house on May 5, 1989. The house, including its roof, has been 
continuously insured since the date of the purchase. After the Binghams moved 
into the house, they discovered that the roof leaked whenever there was 
substantial rainfall. They hired a roofing contractor to inspect the roof in 
June 1989. He found that the flashing on the roof and the felt beneath the 
shingles were improperly installed and that the pitch of the roof was inadequate 
in some locations. He concluded that the roof needed to be replaced at an 
estimated cost of $17,000. In addition, the interior of the house had been 
damaged by water from the leaks, and a carpenter hired by the Binghams estimated 
that it would cost $6,000 to repair that damage.

[¶7]      The Binghams 
brought an action against the Boreings and Ainsworth,1 seeking a recision of the contract, 
compensatory damages, consequential damages, and punitive damages. The Binghams 
also sought their attorney's fees as part of the damage award. The Binghams' 
theory was breach of the contractual provision requiring that a roof inspection 
be made and that the roof be insurable.

[¶8]      The district 
court conducted a bench trial and determined that the roof inspection was one of 
several conditions which the Boreings were required to satisfy before the 
Binghams had an obligation to close the deal. The court found that the roof had 
been inspected, that the parties closed the deal, and that the Boreings' 
obligations ended upon the closing. The court concluded that the Binghams were 
not entitled to relief, because the Boreings had fulfilled their duties under 
the terms of the contract.

[¶9]      In their brief, 
the Binghams assert that one of the necessary characteristics of a roof being in 
an "insurable condition" is that it "keep out water." No authority is cited for 
this proposition, and we have found none. The Binghams do quote the definition 
of "insurable," which is found in Black's Law Dictionary 720 (5th ed. 
1979):

"capable of being insured 
against loss, damage, death, etc.; proper to be insured; affording a sufficient 
ground for insurance."

Greenberg v. 
Continental Casualty Co., 24 Cal. App. 2d 506, 75 P.2d 644, 649 (1938) (quoting 
Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition). The Binghams also 
emphasize the fact that the inspector was not licensed at the time he performed 
the inspection. Neither factor, however, is relevant to the question of whether 
the Boreings breached the contract.

[¶10]   We must apply our rules of contract 
interpretation to determine if a breach occurred:

The determination of the 
parties' intent is our prime focus in construing or interpreting a contract. "If 
an agreement is in writing and the language is clear and unambiguous, the 
intention is to be secured from the words of the agreement." When the language 
is clear and unambiguous, the writing as a whole should be considered, taking 
into account relationships between various parts. Contract construction and 
interpretation are done by the court as a matter of law.

True Oil Company 
v. Sinclair Oil Corporation, 771 P.2d 781, 790 (Wyo. 1989) (citations omitted) 
(quoting Nelson v. Nelson, 740 P.2d 939, 940 (Wyo. 1987)). See also St. Paul 
Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. Albany County School District No. 1, 763 P.2d 1255 (Wyo. 1988). While we are not required to afford any special deference to a 
lower court's interpretation, we agree with the determination made by the 
district court.

[¶11]   We emphasize that the Binghams' 
appeal must rise or fall upon the theory they presented in the district court. 
Medlock v. Merrick, 786 P.2d 881 (Wyo. 1990); Thatcher & Sons, Inc. v. 
Norwest Bank Casper, N.A., 750 P.2d 1324 (Wyo. 1988). We agree with the district 
court that, when the language of the contract is read as a whole, the Boreings 
agreed to provide a roof inspection in order to demonstrate that the roof was in 
an insurable condition. The fact that the roof inspector was not licensed is not 
relevant to a consideration of the limited issue we address here, because the 
record is clear that the dwelling passed all required inspections and that the 
Binghams obtained insurance on the roof. Although somewhat speculative, we can 
opine that, if the Binghams went to their insurance company concerning the 
leakage problem, the insurance company would respond that the policy covers 
damage resulting from a variety of catastrophes, not damage resulting from 
repair and maintenance. Nonetheless, what the Binghams bargained for, and what 
the Boreings provided, was an assurance that, if the Binghams purchased the 
dwelling, they would be able to obtain insurance on the roof for "accidental 
damage or acts of God." The Boreings fulfilled their obligations under the terms 
of the contract, and the Binghams obtained the specified insurance.

[¶12]   Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1 While the Binghams 
asserted claims against Ainsworth, service of process was never achieved, and 
those claims were not adjudicated.