NO. 92-467 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1993 

THE TRAVELERS COMPMIES , 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

RONALD RAY MEYER, also known as 

RON R. MEYER; and CHARLIE BEUHNER, 

Defendants and Appellants. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Daniels, 

The Honorable M. James Sorte, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellants: 

James B. Wheelis, Montana Legal Services 

Association, Kalispell, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Laura Christoffersen, Christoffersen & 

Kniermin, P.C., Wolf Point, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: February 18, 1993 

Decided: May 20, 1993 
Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., delivered the opinion of the Court. 

Appellants Ronald Ray Meyer and Charlie Beuhner appeal from 

the amount of damages awarded plaintiff Travelers Companies for 

reimbursement for the cost of repairing damage to the gymnasium 

floor of the Scobey Public School, Daniels County School District 

No. 1 (School District). 

Reversed and remanded for proceedings in accordance with this 

opinion. 

There are two issues on appeal: 

1. Did the District Court err in admitting respondent's 

Exhibits No. 1 and No. 2 relating to the cost of the damage that 

appellants caused to the gymnasium floor? 

2. Did the District Court err in awarding respondent the 

$1000 deductible that had actually bccx paid by the school 

district? 

At the end of August 1989, appellants vandalized the gymnasium 

of the school district. Appellants acknowledged the damage of a 

broken window, graffiti-painted walls, and water damage to the 

gymnasium floor, but disputed the amount of damages attributed to 

their vandalism. 

Before repairing the gymnasium floor, the school district 

sought bids from Big Sky Custodial Supplies for repair of the 

damage, or in the alternative, replacement of the entire floor. 

After consideration, the school district decided to replace the 
entire floor by combining their own funds with the insurance 

proceeds paid them by respondent for damage caused by appellants. 

At trial, witnesses testified that although parts of the 

gymnasium floor were in poor condition before the vandalism, the 

floor was usable. No one contested the fact that after the 

vandalism the floor needed to be repaired. The school board 

chairman testified that the school board had no plans to replace 

the gymnasium floor prior to the vandalism. 

While appellants admit responsibility for the vandalism and 

that the vaniialism caused damage, they claim the amount they owe 

for the damage is $1717.90, rather than the $5950 claimed by 

respondent. Therein lies the factual dispute. 

I 

Did the District Couri err in ddmiiting respondent's Exhibits 

No. 1 and No. 2 relating to the cost of the damage that appellants 

caused to the gymnasium floor? 

The court admitted Exhibits No. 1 and No. 2 over the 

objections of defense counsel that the exhibits were hearsay and 

there was no proper foundation laid for their admission under 

Rule 602, M.R.Evid. The record before us is not clear, but it does 

show that the school board chairman was allowed to testify about 

the contents of Exhibit No. 1, without establishing that he had any 

personal knowledge of the figures listed therein, and no other 

witnesses were called to testify as to the authenticity of Exhibit 

No. 1. 
Exhibit No. 2 was a letter from the school superintendent to 

the county attorney itemizing costs allegedly resulting from the 

vandalism. Again, over the objections of defense counsel, Exhibit 

No. 2 was admitted, even though neither the superintendent nor the 

county attorney were called to testify at the trial and the record 

does not indicate that there was a proper foundation laid for the 

admission of Exhibit No. 2. Rule 602, M.R.Evid. 

The court found that the amount of vandalism attributable to 

appellants was $5950. In determining the award due to respondent, 

the District Court reviewed tine information contained in Exhibits 

No. 1 and No. 2 which were not properly admitted into evidence. 

The District Court abused its discretion, and therefore, we reverse 

on Issue I. 

11 

Did the District Court err in awarding respondent the $1000 

deductible that had actually been paid by the school district? 

Respondent paid the school district the amount of damages 

attributable to the appellantsv vandalism, less the $1000 

deductible, butthe District Court inadvertently awarded respondent 

the full amount. The District Court erred when it awarded the 

deductible to respondent. 

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance 

with this opinion. 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 

1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as 
precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 

with the Clerk of the Supreme C~urt and by a report of its result 

to Montana Law Week, State Reporter and West Publishing Company. 

We concur: 
May 20, 1993 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the following 

named: 

James B. Wheelis 

Montana Legal Services Assoc. 

33-2nd St. E. 

Kalispell, MT 59901 

Laura Christoffersen 

Gallagher, Archambeauk & Knierim 

P.O. Box 997 

Wolf Point, MT 59201 

ED SMITH 

CIERK OF THE STJPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA