Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03288/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03288-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

United States Cou.rc of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

V 1 ' 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

J.L. HEALY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a 

corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

VENTURE CORPORATION and FIDELITY & 

DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a 

corporation, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-3288 

) (D.C. No. 88-2332-0) 

) ( D. Kan.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, MCWILLIAMS, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App . P . 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This court raised, sua sponte, the question of whether we 

have appellate jurisdiction over this appeal. After consideration 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-3288 Document: 010110051305 Date Filed: 11/16/1990 Page: 1 
of the parties' briefs addressing this issue, we determine that 

this court does have appellate jurisdiction to consider the merits 

of the appeal. 

Plaintiff Healy Construction Company appeals from the 

district court's order granting defendants' motions for summary 

judgment. This diversity action, commenced by Healy, as the 

subcontractor, against Venture, as the general contractor, 

involved a dispute arising from the delivery of lime products to a 

state highway construction site. 

Venture contracted with the Kansas State Department of 

Transportation to perform highway work. It agreed, among other 

things, to supply 1,570 tons of hydrated lime (slurry) to the 

project at a price of $40 per ton. That general contract 

provided, through its incorporation of the project's plans, that, 

at Venture's option, pebble quick lime could be substituted for 

hydrated lime (slurry), which would reduce the total tons of lime 

needed for the project by one-third. 

Venture subsequently entered into a subcontract with Healy, 

whereby Healy agreed to deliver 1,570 tons of hydrated lime 

(slurry) to the construction site and Venture agreed to compensate 

Healy in the amount of $75 per ton, which amounted to a $35 per 

ton premium above the general contractor's price. The subcontract 

provided: 

Section 2. Scope of Work. The Subcontractor 

acknowledges he has examined carefully the site .of the 

proposed work, all contract requirements, and is 

satisfied as to the conditions to be encountered and 

therefor agrees to perform the following described work: 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3288 Document: 010110051305 Date Filed: 11/16/1990 Page: 2 
Lime Treated Subgrade work as described below which 

includes furnishing all materials, labor & equipment to 

perform work per Plans and Specifications which includes 

trimming of subgrade prior to Lime operations and after 

Lime operations complete. 

#31 Hydrated Lime (Slurry) 1570 T@ 75.00/t 117,750.00 

#32 Manipulation 

(Lime Treated Subgrade)l26838 SY@ 1.59/SY 201,672.42 

#33 Water 2257 MGAL@ 11.00/sy 24,827.00 

344,249.42 

See Subcontract, Exhibit to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition 

to Motion for Summary Judgment. 

The subcontract incorporated the general contract, "including 

all the General and Specific Conditions, Drawings, Specifications 

and other documents forming or by reference made a part of" the 

general contract, making Venture's option to substitute pebble 

quick lime a part of the subcontract. See Subcontract, § 1. 

Venture exercised its option and substituted pebble quick lime for 

hydrated lime, thus reducing the amount of lime required for the 

project by one-third. 

Healy commenced this action, claiming it was entitled to the 

total sum of $117,750 stated in the subcontract for lime, 

regardless of the type and amount of lime actually delivered to 

the project. Venture, on the other hand, asserted the subcontract 

obligated Venture to compensate Healy based on the unit price of 

$75 per ton multiplied by the number of tons of lime product Healy 

actually delivered to the construction site. 

This court reviews a district court order granting summary 

judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable 

to the nonrnoving party. See Ewing v. Amoco Oil Co., 823 F.2d 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-3288 Document: 010110051305 Date Filed: 11/16/1990 Page: 3 
, > 

1432, 1437 (10th Cir. 1987). Summary judgment is appropriate if 

there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

The trial court, in awarding Venture summary judgment, 

correctly determined that the subcontract provisions were 

unambiguous. On its face, the subcontract required Healy to 

deliver 1,570 tons of hydrated lime at $75 per ton. Further, it 

was clear that the general contract provision allowing the 

substitution of pebble quick for hydrated lime, resulting in a 

one-third reduction in the total number of tons required, modified 

that provision of the subcontract. The subcontract, therefore, 

unambiguously evinced the parties' intent to contract for the 

tonnage and unit price stated in the subcontract, subject to the 

exercise of Venture's option to use pebble quick in place of 

hydrated lime. 

Healy attempts to argue that the inclusion of the total 

amount of $117,750 for lime in the subcontract makes the price 

provisions of the subcontract ambiguous, thus precluding summary 

judgment. A fair reading of the subcontract and its incorporation 

of the general contract makes it clear that the parties contracted 

for the delivery of lime products, the number of tons being 

subject to change, but the price per ton to remain constant. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. Venture's motion to strike 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-3288 Document: 010110051305 Date Filed: 11/16/1990 Page: 4 
I 

Exhibit E of Healy's reply brief is GRANTED. Both parties' 

motions for sanctions are DENIED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-3288 Document: 010110051305 Date Filed: 11/16/1990 Page: 5