Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02068/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02068-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Interstate Highway Construction, Inc.
Appellant
R & G Dirt Contractors, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

l' IL~ 

Uci ed Statft Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirreit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAN -1 - 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

INTERSTATE HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION, INC., ) 

a Colorado corporation, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

Cross-Appellee, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

) 

R & G DIRT CONTRACTORS, INC., a ) 

Kansas corporation, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee, ) 

Cross-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Nos. 88-2068 

& 

88-2155 

(D.C. No. 86-1452) 

( D. Kan.) 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District Judge. 

**Honorable John L. Kane, District Judge, United States District 

Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Plaintiff, Interstate Highway Construction, Inc. ( IHC), 

appeals in No. 88-2068, from an order of the district court 

finding defendant, R&G Dirt Contractors, Inc. (R&G), partially 

liable for damages arising from the delayed completion of a 

* 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: 88-2068 Document: 01019958674 Date Filed: 01/04/1990 Page: 1 
highway reconstruction project undertaken by IHC. R&G cross 

appeals in No. 88-2155, contesting the district court's allocation 

of delay days. 

In 1984, IHC contracted with the Kansas Department of 

Transportation (KDOT) to reconstruct a 10.3 mile stretch of U.S. 

Highway 50 near Garden City, Kansas. IHC subcontracted a portion 

of the dirt moving, excavation, and compaction work to R&G. R&G's 

work was to be completed by August 30, 1985. Under the terms of 

the contract, R&G agreed to pay IHC liquidated damages assessed 

against IHC by KDOT but caused by R&G and to be liable for all 

consequential damages occasioned by R&G's inexcusable delays. 

R&G completed its work February 3, 1986, 157 days after its 

scheduled completion date. IHC commenced this action in district 

court claiming damages caused by the delay. The district court 

held that R&G was responsible for 106 delay days. 1 The court did 

not allow home office overhead damages claimed by IHC. 

In its appeal, IHC argues that the district court erred in 

rejecting its claim for home office overhead and in allocating too 

large a proportion of the delay to the other subcontractors. 

The district court disallowed home office overhead damages 

because it found that any award would be speculative and that IHC 

had not met its burden of showing that the damages were caused by 

R&G's delay. IHC argues that these damages are a standard 

presumed aspect of delay damages and that R&G had the burden of 

showing that IHC could have mitigated its damages. 

1 The dollar amount of the damages incurred is not contested. 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2068 Document: 01019958674 Date Filed: 01/04/1990 Page: 2 
Delay does not automatically entitle a contractor to recover 

home office overhead expenses. George Hyman Constr. Co. v. 

Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 816 F.2d 753, 756 (D.C. Cir. 

1987). IHC had to first prove that it "suffered actual damage 

because the nature of the delay made it impractical ..• either 

'to undertake the performance of other work,' or 'to [cut back on] 

Home Office personnel or facilities."' Id. at 757 (citations 

omitted). An "ipso facto approach" has not been approved. See 

Capital Elec. Co. v. United States, 729 F.2d 743, 746 (Fed. Cir. 

1984). 

Based on the record submitted on appeal, we agree with the 

district court that IHC did not meet its burden. 

IHC also argues that the district court erroneously allocated 

too large a proportion of the delay to the other subcontractors. 

IHC argues that the percentage of R&G's damages should be based on 

R&G's entire 247 delay days, not just the 157 days occurring after 

August 31, 1985. IHC argues that the district court should not 

have allocated all of the five days delay jointly caused by R&G 

and the milling subcontractor to the milling subcontractor. IHC 

also argues that thirteen of the delay days allocated to the 

surveyors should be allocated to R&G because R&G caused that delay 

by running its graders over an area of blue topped stakes 

resulting in the need to resurvey. 

We will not set aside the district court's findings of fact 

unless they are "clearly erroneous." Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). A 

finding of fact is clearly erroneous if 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2068 Document: 01019958674 Date Filed: 01/04/1990 Page: 3 
it is without factual support in record, or if the 

appellate court, after reviewing all the evidence is 

left with the definite and firm conviction that a 

mistake has been made. The district court need not be 

"correct'' in its finding, but its conclusion must be 

"permissible" in light of the evidence. 

Bill's Coal Co. v. Board of Pub. Utils., 887 F.2d 242, 244 (10th 

Cir. 1989)(citations omitted). 

We do not find the district court's allocation of delay days 

clearly erroneous. Although R&G drove over the blue topped stakes 

in one area resulting in the need to resurvey, it is not clear 

whether the entire thirteen days spent resurveying the area was 

attributable solely to R&G's act or whether some of that time was 

due to the general surveying problems IHC was having. Neither the 

district court's decision to allocate the thirteen delay days to 

the surveyors nor the decision to allocate the joint five delay 

days solely to the milling contractors was clearly erroneous. 

The district court determined that subcontractors other than 

R&G were responsible for fifty-one delay days. These fifty-one 

days included delays incurred both prior to and after August 31, 

1985. However, in computing the percentage of damage caused by 

R&G, the court eliminated the ninety delay days R&G incurred prior 

to August 31, 1985. On remand, these ninety delay days should be 

included in R&G's total delay days and the percentage of damages 

allocated to R&G should be recalculated. 

In its cross-appeal, No. 88-2155, R&G argues that the 

evidence does not support the district court's finding that R&G 

delayed construction in late 1985 and early 1986 because its work 

was substantially completed when the project was opened to traffic 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-2068 Document: 01019958674 Date Filed: 01/04/1990 Page: 4 
.... 

in December, 1985. R&G also argues that the daily project diary 

does not support the district court's finding that other 

subcontractors were responsible for only fifty-one days. R&G 

argues that the other subcontractors caused 193 delay days. 

The district court's allocation tracks IHC's Exhibit 48 which 

detailed the delay allocations. We find no error in the court's 

reliance on this exhibit. 

Finally, R&G argues that IHC forfeited its right to appeal 

because IHC acquiesced in the district court's judgment when it 

sought to enforce the court's judgment by a writ of execution. 

Generally, a party which has acquiesced in a judgment is 

barred from taking an appeal. Brown v. Combined Ins. Co., 597 

P.2d 1080, 1086 (Kan. 1979). However, numerous exceptions to the 

rule have developed, and it is now generally held that if the 

appeal is not affected by acceptance of a portion of the court's 

judgment, that acceptance "does not amount to acquiescence." 

Halpin v. Frankenberger, 644 P.2d 452, 455 (Kan. 1982). Here, IHC 

appealed in order to increase its damage award, not to forfeit 

what was already awarded. This court's ruling on appeal would not 

be affected by satisfaction of the district court's judgment. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED as to the denial of office overhead 

and the allocation of damages. We REMAND solely for 

recalculation of the percentage of damages attributable to R&G. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

5 

the 

Appellate Case: 88-2068 Document: 01019958674 Date Filed: 01/04/1990 Page: 5