IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

March 11, 2015 Session

BAKERS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. v. 

GREENEVILLE-GREENE COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Greene County

No. 20110352 Hon. Douglas T. Jenkins, Chancellor

No. E2014-01395-COA-R3-CV-FILED-MAY 14, 2015

This is a breach of contract action concerning a construction project. The plaintiff argued 

that the defendant‟s failure to provide access to the job site hampered its ability to 

complete the project in an efficient manner. The defendant responded that the plaintiff 

waived the failure to provide access to the site and that the plaintiff was the first to breach 

the contract by failing to provide a construction schedule. Following a bench trial, the 

court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appeals. We affirm the decision of 

the trial court as modified to reflect an adjustment in the award of discretionary costs. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court

Affirmed as Modfied; Case Remanded

JOHN. W. MCCLARTY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which CHARLES D. 

SUSANO, JR., C.J., and D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., joined.

Ronald W. Woods, Jeffrey M. Ward, and Brandy M. Burnette, Greeneville, Tennessee, 

for the appellant, Greeneville-Greene County Airport Authority.

Reggie E. Keaton, Knoxville, Tennessee, and C. Thomas Davenport, Jr., Bristol, 

Tennessee, for the appellee, Baker‟s Construction Services, Inc.

OPINION

I. Background

On September 4, 2009, Baker‟s Construction Services (“Plaintiff”) entered into a 

$2,039,811.60 contract with Greeneville-Greene County Airport Authority (“Defendant”) 

to provide grading, excavation, embankment, utilities, and drainage work necessary to 

extend the runway and taxiway of the Greeneville-Greene County Airport. The extension 
- 2 -

was intended to correct a line of site deficiency on the runway. The project was federally 

funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”) and 

administered through the Tennessee Aeronautics Division of the Tennessee Department 

of Transportation (“TDOT”). Barge Waggoner Sumner Cannon, Inc. (“BWSC”) served 

as the design engineer firm for the project. 

The job site was surrounded by private property. Defendant was tasked with 

securing the properties and providing rights-of-way for the area where the work was to be 

performed. Prior to signing the contract, Plaintiff was informed that some of the 

properties had not been secured. Four days later, Defendant issued a notice to proceed, 

requiring Plaintiff to commence operations the following day, September 9, 2009. 

Plaintiff was tasked with completing the project within 260 days. While Plaintiff 

commenced operations on the project, the contract was revised several times to correct 

clerical errors. The final contract was not received by Plaintiff until October 21, 2009. 

On October 26, 2009, Plaintiff submitted a notice of claim asserting that 

Defendant‟s failure to provide access to the job site impeded the work of excavation and 

embankment. Thereafter, Plaintiff continually requested access to the job site and

repeatedly informed Defendant of problems caused by the lack of access. Despite the 

repeated requests, Plaintiff did not obtain full access to the job site until September 24, 

2010. 

On December 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, alleging breach of 

contract because Defendant impeded Plaintiff‟s efforts by failing to provide access to the 

job site.

1

Plaintiff argued that its inability to utilize the site caused disruption and delay 

damages; additional costs; general administrative expenses; and other damages. Plaintiff

requested damages in excess of $2,351,000, prejudgment interest, and discretionary costs. 

Defendant requested dismissal of the complaint, asserting that it informed Plaintiff prior 

to the execution of the contract that the rights-of-way had not been acquired but that work 

needed to commence by a certain date in order to secure funding. Defendant asserted that 

Plaintiff had waived any claim for breach of contract by proceeding with the work with 

the knowledge that the rights-of-way were not secured. 

The case proceeded to a bench trial. Bart Allen Devore, who served as the vice 

president and project manager for Plaintiff during the time period in question, stated that 

Plaintiff was responsible for clearing and grading the site before the paving of the runway 

could be completed in the second phase of the project. Prior to signing the contract at 

issue, he attended a pre-construction meeting on September 3, 2009. 

 

1 BCS also alleged that the Airport Authority breached the contract by failing to remit payment for the 

entirety of the work performed. The parties settled this portion of the claim. 
- 3 -

A tape of the pre-construction meeting was played for the court. Mr. Devore; 

Chad Baker, Plaintiff‟s President; Ed McHugh, who worked for BWSC; Rick Hudgens, a 

TDOT employee; Janet Malone, Chairman of the Airport Authority; and others not 

pertinent to this appeal were present at the meeting. During the meeting, Mr. McHugh 

asked if they should discuss the property acquisition issues. Rick Hudgens replied, 

“Let‟s hold off on that.” Later in the meeting, Mr. Devore was informed that there was 

property along the existing taxiway that had not been acquired. Mr. Hudgens proclaimed 

that Defendant was “pretty close” to getting the right of entry if they had not already 

closed on the property. Ms. Malone stated that Defendant had not closed on any of the 

properties. Mr. Devore opined that “developing the schedule was really critical” in order 

to understand which fill areas were needed. Ms. Malone later expressed concern 

regarding a piece of property at the end of the runway, namely the Solomon Property. 

She related that the occupants would need access to the property, thereby impeding 

Defendant‟s ability to close the nearby road for construction purposes. Mr. Baker 

expressed concern regarding the fact that they would have to “hopscotch[] around” the 

job site because some of the properties had not been acquired. 

After Mr. Devore and Mr. Baker left the meeting, Mr. Hudgens stated, 

All right. This property thing, it pissed me off to the point of I‟m tired of 

messing with – it‟s ridiculous. We have got – we have got some property 

out here that we know today we could go to the property owner and say this 

is what it‟s worth. This is what we are going to give to you, and we ain‟t 

got s**t. 

The remaining parties, Ms. Malone, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Hudgens, and others not pertinent 

to this appeal, then discussed the extensive problems related to acquiring the properties. 

Mr. Devore testified that he was not apprised of the extent of the problems related 

to acquiring the properties prior to signing the contract. He identified a provision in the 

contract that provided as follows: 

[Defendant] will be responsible for furnishing all rights-of-way upon which 

the work is to be constructed in advance of [Plaintiff‟s] operations.

He claimed that Defendant failed to provide the rights-of-ways as provided in the 

contract. He identified several properties that were not available prior to the issuance of 

the notice to proceed. He related that the project was dependent upon a sequence of 

moving material back and forth in an effort to dry the soil before filling certain areas in 

compliance with the airport‟s modified compaction requirements. He opined that they 
- 4 -

needed to place 50 percent of the fill material in an area that was unavailable and that 

they could have utilized rock material from another piece of unavailable property. 

Mr. Devore testified that he submitted a request for information, dated September 

19, 2009, that provided as follows: 

The construction traffic control sign plans for Old Wilson Road cannot be 

installed per bid plans due to acquisition of property. We have discussed 

the need to close off this road to all but local traffic as we will need to cross 

Old Wilson Road to access stockpile area and obtain the “more suitable” 

soil from across Old Wilson Road for embankments and haul the “less 

suitable” soil to stockpile location. We plan to start cul-de-sac and turn 

around construction as soon as possible. The construction signage plans 

call for Old Wilson road to be closed to thru traffic with barricades placed 

across the roadway. 

We request a revised plan due to liability reasons should we deviate from 

the approved plans and construction signage plan. Please see attached 

existing plans and forward a revised plan for this work on Old Wilson Road 

due to property acquisition issues.2 

He explained that it was extremely important to access the soil across the road because of 

the moisture content levels. They needed the use of the dryer soil to maintain production 

and progress. He stated that they were required to cross the road through an access gate 

because they were unable to completely close the road. Use of the access gate was 

inefficient because only one unit could pass through the gate at a time, causing delay as 

the unit traveling in the opposite direction was left to wait its turn. 

Mr. Devore identified the notice of claim, dated October 26, 2009, which 

provided, in pertinent part, as follows: 

[Plaintiff] is hereby giving notice in accordance with [the contract] that the 

work of excavation and embankment is being severely impeded and the 

project cannot be constructed as bid because [Defendant‟s] property 

acquisition issues have limited jobsite area available to [Plaintiff] for the 

performance of its work. [Plaintiff‟s] cost and the time required to perform 

earthwork operations is being increased by lack of access to the entire 

project site for [Plaintiff] to best utilize cut and fill areas to maximize 

excavation efficiency. The inability to place embankment in the project 

 

2 Ms. Malone later testified that the road at issue was actually Old Wilson Hill Road. 
- 5 -

area between station 45+00 and station 61+00+/- restricts the volume of 

project embankment that can be placed by approximately 50%. The 

existing soil moisture content makes the amount of available area for 

embankment placement that much more critical to [Plaintiff‟s] ability to 

control the cost to perform this work. Another area of the project 

unavailable for work is excavation area station 86+50 to 92+00+/- right, 

where our exploration uncovered rock that needs to be utilized in the lower 

fill areas. 

The time frame for these areas to be available to work is unknown as of this 

date. At this time [Plaintiff] cannot quantify the total impact of this 

ongoing impediment on its Work but hereby submits notice as required 

under the Contract that a claim for adjustment will be submitted for 

additional compensation and for an extension to the Contract Time when 

the total impact can be ascertained. 

He explained that they only had limited areas available to manipulate fill soil back and 

forth and that access to more area as anticipated during the bidding process would have 

increased their ability to dry soil and continue placing fill material. 

Mr. Devore testified that he attended a progress meeting with Defendant and that 

he documented the minutes of the meeting in an email that provided, in pertinent part, as 

follows: 

[Plaintiff] asked about the liability of blasting as close as possible to the 

yellow house as it will be purchased by [Defendant] in the future. Blasting 

to the limit would generate additional fill for rock fill areas that is the only 

feasible fill on-site that can be accomplished with the wet conditions. The 

answer was [Plaintiff] is totally liable until property is purchased by airport. 

This property will be taken by condemnation after the holidays. 

[Plaintiff] inquired as to the status of remaining property purchase by 

airport. Status is property acquisition is in progress and offers have been 

made to property Owners. No firm date as of this meeting for property to 

be turned over to construction. 

* * *

The status of Cemetery relocation was discussed, no firm date for 

relocation.
- 6 -

* * *

The demolition of yellow house was determined to be an extra to the 

contract. This parcel was noted in bid process that it would be gone before 

construction started. 

[P]laintiff asked about demo of Old Wilson Road pavement. The roadway 

must stay for access to yellow house and other two properties on existing 

road or stone placed if asphalt removed. Airport is to notify residents of 

pending road closure next week. 

He explained that Plaintiff planned to work through the winter by acquiring as much rock 

as possible because the rock could be placed when the weather was too damp to place the 

soil. He related that they were unable to work through the winter, in part, because they 

did not have access to the job site. He opined that the work could have “been close” to 

completion if they had worked through the winter. He conceded that his bid schedule 

reflected a shutdown during the winter months due to weather. 

Mr. Devore identified a letter that he sent to Defendant in April 2010, inquiring 

whether the property issues had been resolved and advising Defendant that the work

would be more costly as a result of the property issues. He reminded Defendant of his 

initial letter in October 2009 and requested a response within 10 days of receipt of the 

letter. He never received a response from Defendant. 

Mr. Devore conceded that he only submitted one construction schedule throughout 

the course of the project, despite the fact that the contract required him to provide 

construction schedules on a bi-monthly basis. He testified that he informed Defendant by 

email in May 2010 that he was unable to provide a construction schedule because they 

did not have access to the entire job site. He stated that he advised Defendant that he 

would craft a schedule once he knew when the site would be available. He was informed 

that negotiations for acquisition of the property were ongoing and that acquisition had 

been delayed because Defendant had not secured grants to purchase the properties. He 

testified that at the time of contracting, Defendant did not explain that it needed to secure 

grants to purchase the properties. He advised Defendant that the loss of access to just one 

of the properties, the Solomon Property, cost approximately $7,000 per day. 

Mr. Devore testified that they resumed work on June 28, 2010, despite the fact that 

they still did not have access to the job site. At that time, they had utilized 87 of the 260 

planned working days. He testified that Plaintiff incurred remobilization costs to fence 

an area that was previously unavailable at the start of the project and that they were 
- 7 -

unable to drill and blast to secure rock material because the Solomon Property was

unsecured. He conceded that the airport project had generated a profit by June 30, 2010. 

Mr. Devore notified Defendant once again in July 2010 that Plaintiff was hindered 

in its ability to perform efficiently due to the unavailability of the job site. He explained 

that they were unable to utilize the warm weather in the summer months because the site 

remained unsecured. He stated that his request to increase efficiency regarding the 

closure of Old Wilson Hill Road was denied. He agreed that some properties were 

available as the work progressed and that he was provided access to other properties even 

though they were not officially acquired. He also agreed that he could have refused to 

sign the notice to proceed because Defendant could not provide access to the job site. 

Plaintiff secured access to the entirety of the job site in September 2010; however, 

Mr. Devore claimed that issues regarding the job site remained because they had to haul 

materials in a less efficient manner. They also experienced additional costs because they 

were unable to finish before Phase II of the project began. He believed that they would 

have finished prior to the start of Phase II if the properties had been available as 

anticipated in the bid documents. He conceded that he was aware from the beginning of 

the project that Phase II was set to begin in Spring 2010. 

Mr. Devore stated that they suspended work once again in December 2010 due to 

weather conditions. They resumed work in May 2011, and 20 working days were added 

to the contracting period. He related that the project was substantially completed by July 

1, 2011, within 334 working days. He asserted that they remained on the project to 

perform maintenance issues and erosion control until November 2011. 

Earl Buchanan, the Chief Financial Officer for Plaintiff, testified that the total cost 

for the airport project was $4,251,166.14.

Kevin Buck, Plaintiff‟s estimator, senior project manager, and corporate secretary, 

testified that he toured the property before preparing the estimates. He stated that Ms. 

Malone informed him on the tour that the Solomon Property would be acquired before 

the start of the project. He explained that he prepared the estimate with the understanding 

that the job site, including the Solomon Property, would be available to Plaintiff. He 

asserted that the project was not the same without access to the property. He explained, 

It‟s a pretty simply project. The biggest elements are the excavation and 

fill elements and items. And to do efficient grading, particularly on 

material as on this project where you have got the geotechnical report 

indicated that you have got fairly moist material, and it gets more moist as 

you go down deeper. And we do that – additional explorations for our own 
- 8 -

benefit to confirm that that was the case before we started. But that – the 

method to mediate the problem of moisture is area. 

When you are performing your cuts, you are starting at the top and, of 

course, the top is just a small area, and the cut gets bigger as you go down. 

You are increasing the area of the cut. But as you are going down into the 

more moist material, you have got a larger area which is exposed to the 

weather which hopefully is drying weather, so you have got weather to dry 

it. If necessary, you can also put – you can use mechanical drying, disks. 

We use disk tractors like farmers use, although bigger ones. 

The fill area is the same way. You start your fills at the bottom. You have 

got a small fill area to work in, and then you are bringing that up. As you 

come up, the fill area gets bigger, so you have got more area for drying. 

Also, you are worried about hauling material the shortest distance possible. 

You want to take the closest cut to the . . . farthest fill. In other words, you 

need to move the material as quickly and short a distance as possible over 

the whole project. 

He asserted that the bid documents assumed that Plaintiff would move the “farthest fills 

first with the best materials.” He explained that the cost of moving the material changed

as the distance changed. 

Mr. Buck stated that Plaintiff was required to obtain bid security with a bonding 

company obligating Plaintiff to follow through with the agreement or forfeit a percentage

of the contract award. Likewise, Plaintiff was required to provide a performance bond 

and a payment bond, providing that all payments made by the contractor were necessary. 

He stated that Plaintiff‟s financial statements that reflected a profit were inaccurate 

because the statements considered direct cost, not general administrative cost and were

driven by an estimated profit. 

Mr. Baker testified that he served as the president for Plaintiff. He confirmed that 

they needed large areas of property in order to effectively complete the project by moving 

from area to area while waiting for the soil in each area to dry. He asserted that the 

project exceeded the estimated cost because they were unable to place the fill material the 

way they anticipated in the bid documents. He likewise confirmed that forfeiting the bid, 

performance, or payment bond would have been detrimental to himself and the company. 

He explained that grading contractors cannot “jump around from bonding company to 

bonding company” because contractors need to build long-term relationships with the 

bonding company in order to secure the ability to obtain future bonds for future projects. 
- 9 -

He agreed that the performance and payment bonds were not executed until September 4, 

2009, after the pre-construction meeting. He conceded that he was present for the preconstruction meeting, where he learned that the properties had not been acquired. He 

asserted that he believed Ms. Malone when she claimed that she would close on the 

properties quickly. He agreed that he did not provide a construction schedule as 

requested. He explained that they could not produce a schedule until they knew which 

properties would be available to them. 

William Frank Connole, president of Franvel Corporation, estimated that Plaintiff 

was entitled to in excess of $2,300,000 in damages. He calculated the damages sustained 

by Plaintiff, in part, by using the measured mile method, which “compares productivity in 

a period unaffected by the contract change with the productivity attained while 

encountering the change.” Mr. Connole claimed that the lack of access impacted each 

period of the project; therefore, he chose the period with the least disruption to 

production as the measured mile. He identified that period as September 9, 2009, to 

September 25, 2009 (“Period 1”), despite the fact that Plaintiff only worked four days 

during Period 1 and that most experts disregard the first period and the last period when 

attempting to choose the least impacted period. He explained that the loss of efficiency 

in production was determined by comparing the hourly production in Period 1 against the 

hourly production during other periods, yielding a loss of efficiency factor percentage for 

each period. He noted that the production for Period 1 was 117.6 cubic yards per hour, 

while the production for Period 2 was 39.5 cubic yards per hour, yielding a loss of 

efficiency factor of 66.41 percent. He then identified a percentage for each period. 

Mr. Connole calculated the disruption costs due to lack of access by multiplying 

the period operating costs by the loss of efficiency percentage for each period, yielding a 

disruption cost of $1,320,460. Recognizing that BWSC had credited Plaintiff for some of 

the additional cost, he reduced the cost by $49,603, yielding a final disruption cost of 

$1,270,857. 

Mr. Connole testified that the loss of access also caused increased equipment cost 

due to underutilization. He stated that rental contracts assume 176 working hours per 

month for each piece of equipment. He reduced the total operating hours for each month 

by 176 to ascertain the number of standby hours for each piece of equipment. He stated 

that after reviewing the weather conditions, he believed that Plaintiff should have been 

able to resume work after the winter shutdown from April through July 2010; therefore, 

he calculated 176 standby hours per month for each piece of equipment during that time 

period. He then multiplied the total standby hours for each piece of equipment by the 

standby rate recognized in the industry, yielding a total delay cost of $295,908. 
- 10 -

Mr. Connole testified that Plaintiff incurred an additional cost of $580 to ensure 

that blasting operations were not detrimental to the Solomon Property. Likewise, the 

fencing subcontractor was required to return to the site to fence property that was 

previously unavailable due to loss of access; therefore, Plaintiff incurred a remobilization 

cost of $1,800. He related that Plaintiff incurred an extended field overhead cost of 

$50,765 because the project was not finished within the anticipated completion date. He 

stated that Plaintiff also incurred additional general administration expenses of $403,175 

and an additional $60,000 to complete the project. Finally, he added a profit of 

$208,308.50, bond damages of $45,785, and a gross receipt tax of $2,351. He conceded 

that Plaintiff originally estimated a profit of 4.8 percent, not 10 percent. 

Mr. Connole also calculated the damages sustained by Plaintiff using the total cost 

method, which reflects the total cost minus the payments received plus additional 

expenses. Using that method, he estimated that Plaintiff sustained $2,616,780 in 

damages. He agreed that the measured mile method was more indicative of the actual 

damages sustained by Plaintiff. 

Following the trial court‟s denial of Defendant‟s motion for a directed verdict, Ed 

Crook, a real estate appraiser and right-of-way acquisition consultant, testified that he 

assisted Defendant in obtaining the rights-of-way for the airport project. He recalled that

he assisted in the negotiations, relocation assistance, and the property closings for 16 

properties that were affected by the airport project. He began work in March 2009, when 

the property appraisals were not yet complete. He explained that TDOT reviewed the 

appraisals before he was able to negotiate and make any offers. He related that each 

property was subject to condemnation if he could not come to an agreement with the 

owner. He recalled that there were 4 or 5 properties out of the 16 that required 

displacement of the property owners. He stated that once he was able to reach an 

agreement, he still had to secure funding from the State of Tennessee to close the 

properties. He acknowledged that he informed Ms. Malone of the problems in securing 

the properties but that he never spoke with Plaintiff. 

Ed McHugh testified that he was the project manager for BWSC for the airport 

project. He recalled that BWSC conducted a preliminary study in 2008 to correct the line 

of sight deficiency. BWSC was employed as the design engineer for the project when the

request for funding was approved. BWSC produced designs for a site preparation 

package and a pavement package. He stated that the entire project had to be completed 

within approximately two years. The project also had to be ready for construction with 

an accepted bid by September 2009. He stated that the project involved a 

site preparation package which was relocating some fence lines, grading at 

the end of the 23 side of the runway to extend that out about 1600 feet with 
- 11 -

[a] 1000-foot safety area. The excess material would have been stockpiled 

on the north side of the site for future use for the next several phases.

He recalled that Plaintiff was awarded a unit price contract for the site preparation portion 

of the project. He explained that Plaintiff was compensated based upon the quantity of 

materials moved, provided, or installed. He stated that he was surprised at the bids 

submitted for the project because he anticipated a price of $5 per cubic yard, instead of 

the approximate $2 per cubic yard requested by Plaintiff, yielding a $1,200,000 

difference. 

Mr. McHugh stated that BWSC had a good working relationship with Plaintiff and 

that he believed that Plaintiff produced “good quality work.” He recalled that any issues 

with the project were addressed through change directives or schedules during progress 

meetings. He recalled that the soil was “very moist” and required additional work to 

achieve the proper moisture content to meet compaction requirements. He claimed that 

the weather was disruptive to the grading and excavation work and that after the winter 

shutdown, Plaintiff did not request to resume work on the project until May 2010. He 

believed that it would have been difficult for Plaintiff to work prior to that time due to the 

weather conditions. He asserted that periods of shutdown were anticipated for this 

project, just like any project affected by weather conditions. He claimed that Plaintiff 

was aware that Phase II of the project was set to begin before Phase I was completed. 

Mr. McHugh testified that the contract required Plaintiff to produce construction 

schedules on a regular basis and that he asked for a construction schedule “[s]everal 

times.” He only received one schedule. Plaintiff advised him that a schedule could not 

be produced until Plaintiff knew when the properties would be available. He advised 

Plaintiff that a schedule was necessary to gauge the impact of the limited job site and to 

know which properties were hindering production. He recalled that Plaintiff was present 

at the pre-construction meeting and knew that the properties had not been secured. He 

claimed that Plaintiff could have refused to sign the contract and that prior to October 

2009, Plaintiff never informed him that they could not complete the project as bid. 

Plaintiff never sought to modify the contract, and he never received any estimates or 

assessments regarding the increased cost. He related that Plaintiff‟s request for damages 

was twice the compensation anticipated in the contract award. 

Mr. McHugh conceded that the properties were not available to Plaintiff as 

everyone had originally anticipated. He identified an email in which he stated, in 

pertinent part, 

Janet, I think we should phrase the letter to say that the Airport Authority 

was granted right of access for the properties owned by SMN and that these 
- 12 -

properties combined with the property owned by the Airport were the 

properties where work was performed in 2009. The next part should say[,] 

Prior to beginning construction in 2010, I will provide you with another 

letter identifying areas that are available for construction that have been 

obtained by the Airport Authority. 

Let‟s not say anything about acquiring since the end of construction in 

2009. That is putting in writing the fact that we did not have control of all 

the properties. 

He agreed that the meeting notes for the pre-bid meeting did not contain any references to 

the issues in acquiring the properties at the job site. He acknowledged that Plaintiff 

continually asked about the properties and requested access to the job site. He conceded 

that the contract was not performed within the original contract period but asserted that 

the work was completed within the acceptable time limits required to secure the funding. 

Janet Malone testified concerning the particulars for the funding of the project. In 

pertinent part, she stated that the project could not receive federal funding if they did not 

break ground by September 16, 2009. Relative to the properties, she said that Defendant 

had worked to get the properties appraised years before they even received funding for 

the project. She related that they never had any indication that there would be a problem 

in acquiring the properties. She recalled that they did not realize they had an issue with 

the Solomon Property until November 2009 and that they eventually had to acquire that 

property through condemnation. She acknowledged that she received an email, dated 

July 16, 2009, from Mr. McHugh that provided as follows: 

Based on our phone call yesterday, Rick asked that I prepare a priority list 

for the appraisal reviews that we need handled first. I have attached a 

drawing for the parcels and a listing that I have prioritized. We are looking 

to start construction in August and I will need all of these soon. The ones 

that will impact construction starting are shown as the first 6 on the list. 

They are also in order of preference/urgency. Tract 8/8A, Solomon tract 

has a residence that we will have to relocate the owners so this is number 1. 

The other five (48, 50, 10, 18, & 19) are needed to start earthwork. 

She agreed that some of the properties that were identified as a priority were some of the 

last properties acquired by Defendant. 

Ms. Malone testified that she never purposefully withheld information from 

Plaintiff and that she never advised Plaintiff that they would have the properties by a 

certain date. She related that the grant to acquire the properties was not even approved 
- 13 -

until May 2010. She agreed that she may have advised Plaintiff that she did not foresee 

any problems in acquiring certain properties, specifically the Solomon Property. She 

asserted that Plaintiff never indicated that the project could not start until the properties 

were acquired or asked how long until they would acquire the properties. She opined that 

she would not have insisted on their compliance or solicited funds pursuant to the bond 

agreements if Plaintiff had refused to comply with the notice to proceed. She claimed 

that Plaintiff did not inform her that the project could not be completed as bid until 

October 2009. She related that she did not know how serious the claim was because they 

never provided her with specifics regarding the cost as a result of loss of access to the 

site. She asserted that despite repeated requests, she did not receive a schedule from 

Plaintiff until June 2010. She claimed that it was difficult to know which properties were 

most important to Plaintiff without a schedule. She stated that she informed Plaintiff 

when each property was available to them as part of the job site. She agreed that 

Plaintiff‟s work was hindered by the unavailability of the properties.

Robert Guthrie, II testified that he and his team at Construction Project Solutions 

reviewed the claim submitted by Plaintiff and Mr. Connole‟s report. He opined that he 

did not believe that Defendant had breached the contract because construction projects 

routinely require relocation of site utilities. He believed that Defendant was not required 

to provide the rights-of-way for each property at the beginning of the project but that 

Defendant was required to provide the rights-of-way for each property when Plaintiff 

began work in that particular area. He related that in order for Defendant to timely 

provide access to each property, Plaintiff was required to submit a construction schedule 

outlining which properties were needed as the project progressed. 

Mr. Guthrie stated that Plaintiff assumed the risk that the project would exceed the 

costs estimated in its bid. He related that some companies submitted lower bids for the 

project, while others submitted higher bids for the project. He stated that there were even 

some bids within the $4,000,000 range anticipated by Defendant when it began the 

bidding process. He asserted that the damages claimed by Plaintiff were simply 

unreasonable. He admitted that Plaintiff‟s losses were a result of the inability to move 

the material at the rate they anticipated in the bid documents. He conceded that most of 

his experience was in reviewing manufacturing claims, not excavation and grading 

claims. He agreed that he had not visited the project site in this case. 

Relative to the damages sustained by Plaintiff, Mr. Guthrie asserted that Plaintiff 

was not entitled to damages during the winter shutdown. He explained that the parties

agreed that work on the project should stop due to weather and the ongoing property 

issues. He asserted that Plaintiff was also not entitled to damages related to any delays 

experienced as a result of Phase II of the project. He opined that it was Plaintiff‟s 

responsibility to coordinate with the other contractors on the project and ensure that the 
- 14 -

schedules did not conflict. He likewise asserted that the scope of Plaintiff‟s work did not 

change as a result of the property issues. He agreed that the order in which Plaintiff 

performed the work changed but asserted that it was “not uncommon for design phases to 

change” during construction. He stated that Plaintiff should have recognized at the preconstruction meeting that the unavailability of the properties affected the construction 

schedule. He asserted that Plaintiff should have addressed the issue with Defendant and 

made any necessary adjustments to the contract price or the schedule before complying 

with the notice to proceed. He related that Plaintiff‟s October 2009 notice should have 

included an indication of the additional cost and that the parties should have discussed the 

potential impacts to the cost as the project progressed. He opined that the parties could 

have researched and negotiated the cost of the impact during the winter shutdown instead 

of simply ignoring the issue and proceeding with the work after a six-month delay. 

Mr. Guthrie testified that the measured mile method was the preferred method for 

calculating damages. He disagreed with Mr. Connole‟s use of Period 1 as the measured 

mile when Plaintiff only worked for four days during that period. He asserted that Period 

8, August 25 through September 18, 2010, was the least impacted period. He explained 

that during Period 8, Plaintiff had access to more of the job site and was utilizing more 

pieces of equipment. He likewise disagreed with Mr. Connole‟s use of actual cost in 

calculating damages. He asserted that the use of the unit price anticipated in the contract 

was more indicative of the actual damages sustained by Plaintiff. Using Period 8 as the 

measured mile, he calculated the disruption cost due to lack of access by multiplying the 

amount billed by Plaintiff based upon the unit price in the contract by the loss of 

efficiency percentage for each period, yielding a total of $151,785.82 in disruption 

damages. He agreed that Plaintiff was entitled to $580 for blast monitoring and $1800 

for remobilizing the fencing subcontractor.

Mr. Guthrie testified that Plaintiff was not entitled to delay damages because 

Plaintiff did not provide adequate documentation to justify that the equipment was 

underutilized. He explained that equipment is routinely underutilized throughout 

construction projects. He also disagreed with Mr. Connole‟s use of blue book rates for 

equipment costs and the calculation of delay damages from April through June 2010. He 

explained that the parties agreed to the length of the winter shutdown. In the event that 

the court held that delay damages were necessary, he calculated the damages using the 

rates published by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and excluding damages 

during the winter shutdown. He estimated that Plaintiff‟s claim for delay damages should 

be reduced to $79,029.37. He did not believe that Plaintiff was entitled to additional 

damages for extended field overhead, general administration expenses, profit, bond, or a 

gross receipts tax because the contract unit price included these additional expenses 

claimed by Plaintiff. He agreed that recovery of field overhead and general 
- 15 -

administration expenses would be appropriate if Plaintiff were able to claim that 

Defendant extended the contract period. 

Following the presentation of the above evidence, the trial court held that Defendant 

breached the contract with Plaintiff and that Plaintiff was entitled to damages following 

the expiration of an initial 60-day period, in recognition of Plaintiff‟s knowledge that the 

properties were not available. The court requested additional reports from each expert 

regarding the calculation of damages. After reviewing the reports, the court found that 

the measured mile method, with Period 1 as the measured mile, was the appropriate 

method for calculating damages. However, the court agreed with Defendant that the 

amount of damages should be calculated using amount billed by Plaintiff based upon the 

unit price in the contract, not the actual cost claimed by Plaintiff. The court awarded 

damages in the amount of $550,547.50, representing $369,871.66 in disruption damages, 

$28,295.84 in delay damages, $580 for additional blast monitoring, $1,800 for the 

remobilization of the fencing subcontractor, and $150,000 in additional expenses for 

extended field overhead and general administration expenses. Thereafter, the court 

awarded Plaintiff an addition $158,854.27 in prejudgment interest and $9,989.70 in 

discretionary costs. This timely appeal followed. 

II. ISSUES

We consolidate and restate the issues raised on appeal as follows: 

A. Whether the trial court erred in finding that Defendant breached its 

contract with Plaintiff. 

B. Whether the trial court erred in calculating the disruption damages 

awarded to Plaintiff. 

C. Whether the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest. 

D. Whether the trial court erred in awarding discretionary costs. 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

After a bench trial, we review a trial court‟s findings of fact de novo with a 

presumption of correctness unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. 

R. App. P. 13(d); Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001). Because the trial 

court is in the best position to observe witnesses and evaluate their demeanor, we afford 

great deference to a trial court‟s credibility determinations. Hughes v. Metro. Govt. of 

Nashville and Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352, 360 (Tenn. 2011). We review questions 
- 16 -

of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. Whaley v. Perkins, 197 S.W.3d 665, 

670 (Tenn. 2006).

The trial court‟s award of prejudgment interest is reviewed under an abuse of 

discretion standard. BankcorpSouth Bank, Inc. v. Hatchel, 223 S.W.3d 223, 230 (Tenn.

Ct. App. 2006); Franklin Capital Assocs., L.P. v. Almost Family, Inc., 194 S.W.3d 392, 

405 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). Likewise, discretionary costs are awarded pursuant to Rule 

54.04(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure expressly address themselves to the 

sound discretion of the trial court. Stalworth v. Grummins, 36 S.W.3d 832, 835 (Tenn.

Ct. App. 2000). “A trial court abuses its discretion only when it „applie[s] an incorrect 

legal standard or reache[s] a decision which is against logic or reasoning that cause[s] an 

injustice to the party complaining.‟” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn.

2001) (quoting State v. Shirley, 6 S.W.3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999)). If a discretionary 

decision is within a range of acceptable alternatives, we will not substitute our judgment 

for that of the trial court simply because we may have chosen a different alternative. 

White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21 S.W.3d 215, 223 (Tenn. Ct. App.1999).

IV. DISCUSSION

A.

In order to prevail in a breach of contract case, a plaintiff must prove “the 

existence of a valid and enforceable contract, a deficiency in the performance amounting 

to a breach, and damages caused by the breach.” Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters, 354 S.W.3d 

287, 291 (Tenn. 2011) (citing ARC LifeMed, Inc. v. AMC-Tenn., Inc., 183 S.W.3d 1, 26 

(Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)). The cardinal rule of contract interpretation is that the court must 

attempt to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties. Christenberry v. 

Tipton, 160 S.W.3d 487, 494 (Tenn. 2005). In attempting to ascertain the intent of the 

parties, the court must examine the language of the contract, giving each word its usual, 

natural, and ordinary meaning. See Wilson v. Moore, 929 S.W.2d 367, 373 (Tenn. Ct.

App. 1996). The court‟s initial task in construing the contract is to determine whether the 

language is ambiguous. Planters Gin Co. v. Fed. Compress & Warehouse Co., 78 

S.W.3d 885, 889-90 (Tenn. 2002). In general terms, an ambiguity occurs where a word 

or phrase is capable of more than one meaning when viewed in the context of the entire 

agreement by an objective and reasonable person. Campora v. Ford, 1124 S.W.3d 624, 

629 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Walk-in Med. Ctrs., Inc. v. Breuer Capital Corp., 818 

F.2d 260, 263 (2d Cir.1987)). If the language of a contract is ambiguous, the ambiguity 

must be construed against the drafter of the contract. See Hanover Ins. Co. v. Haney, 425 

S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tenn. 1968); Realty Shop, Inc. v. RR Westminster Holding, Inc., 7 

S.W.3d 581, 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). 
- 17 -

Defendant argues that it did not breach its contract with Plaintiff because it 

provided the rights-of-way prior to Plaintiff‟s work on each piece of property. Plaintiff 

responds that Defendant was required to provide the rights-of-way for the entirety of the 

job site before Plaintiff commenced operations. The provision at issue in this case 

provide as follows: 

The Owner will be responsible for furnishing all rights-of-way upon which 

the work is to be constructed in advance of the Contractor‟s operations.

Defendant‟s suggested interpretation, namely that it was required to provide the right-ofway to each piece of property before Plaintiff commenced operations on that piece of 

property, is a strained interpretation of the contract and does not give each word its usual, 

natural, and ordinary meaning when viewed in the context of the entire agreement. 

Indeed, the contract defines “work” as follows:

The furnishing of all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals 

necessary or convenient to the Contractor‟s performance of all duties and 

obligations imposed by the contract, plans, and specifications. 

We, like the trial court, believe that the provision at issue clearly and unambiguously 

provided that Defendant was required to provide the rights-of-way to the entire job site 

prior to the start of Plaintiff‟s operations. 

Defendant asserts that if it was required to provide the rights-of-way prior to the 

start of operations, Plaintiff waived that requirement by commencing operations, despite 

the property issues. Defendant claims that the trial court erroneously refused to find that 

Plaintiff waived the provision at issue, despite awarding damages following the 

expiration of an initial waiver period. Plaintiff responds that it never waived Defendant‟s 

responsibility to provide access to the job site as evidenced by the repeated requests to 

secure access to the job site. 

Following the presentation of the evidence at trial, the court recognized that 

Plaintiff was not entitled to damages if it waived the provision at issue in the contract; 

however, the court advised the parties that it was considering applying a “partial waiver” 

to the facts of the case. Upon consideration of case law submitted by the parties, the 

court retracted its earlier statement and specifically found that Plaintiff had not waived

any provisions of the contract. The court then assessed damages, following the 

expiration of an initial 60-day period. Citing Henley Supply Co., v. Universal 

Contractor, Inc., No. 88-238-II, 1989 WL 31620, *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 1989), 

Defendant asserts that assessing damages following a waiver period is contrary to law. 
- 18 -

In Henley, this court stated, 

Inaction in situations where a person would normally be expected to act can 

be conduct amounting to a waiver. Thus, courts will usually conclude that 

persons who, with knowledge of the other party‟s breach, continue to 

perform or to accept the benefits of the contract without making a timely 

objection have waived their right to insist on strict performance. 

Once a party has waived a contractual right, it cannot later revoke its 

waiver at its own convenience and insist on strict performance. 

1989 WL 31620, at *4 (internal citations omitted). However, this court has also stated, 

A waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right. Waiver is a 

doctrine of very broad and general application. It concedes a right, but 

assumes a voluntary relinquishment of it. Our courts have held that there 

must be clear, unequivocal and decisive acts of the party or an act which 

shows determination not to have the benefit intended in order to constitute a 

waiver. 

Gitter v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 450 S.W.2d 780, 784 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1969) 

(internal citations omitted); see also Regions Bank v. Thomas, 422 S.W.3d 550, 561 

(Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Gitter with approval and discussing the doctrine of waiver). 

Here, Plaintiff was not aware of the extensive problems in procuring the rights-ofway and was not even informed that Defendant had not procured the grants to purchase

the properties. The record also reflects that Defendant purposefully withheld information 

from Plaintiff and intentionally avoided providing Plaintiff with documentation 

concerning the extent of the issue. When Plaintiff realized the extent of the problem, it 

promptly advised Defendant that it was incurring damages and requested access to the 

properties pursuant to the contract. With these considerations in mind, we conclude that 

Plaintiff did not waive the provision requiring Defendant to provide the rights-of-way to 

the entire job site prior to commencing operations. We agree that a court may not award 

damages to a party after determining that the party waived the contractual provision at 

issue. However, the trial court is tasked with assessing damages in an amount it deems 

fair and reasonable. See generally BancorpSouth Bank, Inc., 223 S.W.3d at 230

(citations omitted). With these considerations in mind, we conclude that the trial court 

did not err in assessing damages following the expiration of an initial 60-day period. 

This conclusion does not end our inquiry because Defendant alternatively argues 

that if it breached the contract and Plaintiff did not waive the breach, then Plaintiff was 
- 19 -

the first to breach the contract by failing to provide construction schedules. Plaintiff 

responds that its failure to provide schedules was a result of Defendant‟s failure to 

provide access to the job site. The provisions at issue provide as follows: 

80-03 PROSECUTION AND PROGRESS. Unless otherwise specified, 

the Contractor shall submit his/her progress schedule for the Engineer‟s 

approval 10 days prior to the pre-construction meeting. The Contractor‟s 

progress schedule, when approved by the Engineer, may be used to 

establish major construction operations and to check on the progress of the 

work. The Contractor shall provide sufficient materials, equipment, and 

labor to guarantee the completion of the project in accordance with the 

plans and specifications within the time set forth in the proposal. . . . 

* * *

100-04 PROJECT PROGRESS SCHEDULE. The Contractor shall 

submit a coordinated construction schedule for all work activities. The 

schedule shall be prepared as a network diagram in Critical Path Method 

(CPM), PERT, or other format, or as otherwise specified in the contract. 

As a minimum, it shall provide information on the sequence of work 

activities, milestone dates, and activity duration. 

The Contractor shall maintain the work schedule and provide an update and 

analysis of the progress schedule on a twice monthly basis, or as otherwise 

specified in the contract. Submission of the work schedule shall not relieve 

the Contractor of overall responsibility for scheduling, sequencing, and 

coordinating all work to comply with the requirements of the contract. 

These provisions are clear and unambiguous when viewed in the context of the entire 

agreement. Plaintiff provided a schedule during the bidding process but did not provide

subsequent schedules on a “twice monthly basis.” 

“In cases where both parties have not fully performed their contractual obligations, 

it is necessary for the court to determine which party is chargeable with the first uncured 

material breach.” McClain v. Kimbrough Constr. Co., 806 S.W.2d 194, 199 (Tenn. Ct.

App. 1990). “Only [Plaintiff‟s] uncured material failure to perform its own contractual 

obligations would have excused [Defendant] from performing its remaining obligations.” 

Id. (citation omitted). In determining whether a failure to perform is material, courts 

consider the following circumstances: 
- 20 -

(a) the extent to which the injured party will be deprived of the benefit 

which he reasonably expected;

(b) the extent to which the injured party can be adequately compensated 

for the part of that benefit of which he will be deprived;

(c) the extent to which the party failing to perform or to offer to perform 

will suffer forfeiture;

(d) the likelihood that the party failing to perform or to offer to perform 

will cure his failure, taking account of all the circumstances including any 

reasonable assurances;

(e) the extent to which the behavior of the party failing to perform or to 

offer to perform comports with standards of good faith and fair dealing.

Id. (citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff claimed that it could not submit a construction 

schedule, other than the one submitted during the bidding process, without knowing when 

the site would be available for its operations, while Defendant claimed that it needed a 

schedule to determine which properties were necessary for Plaintiff‟s operations. Having 

concluded that Defendant was contractually required to provide access to the entire job 

site at the start of the project, we further conclude that Plaintiff‟s failure to provide 

construction schedules pursuant to the contract was not a material breach of the contract 

given Plaintiff‟s repeated assurances that it would provide a schedule when possible. 

Accordingly, Defendant‟s failure to provide the rights-of-ways prior to the start of the 

project was the first material breach of the contract. 

B.

Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in adopting Mr. Guthrie‟s assessment of 

disruption damages. Mr. Guthrie calculated the disruption damages by multiplying the 

amount billed by Plaintiff based upon the unit price in the contract by the loss of 

efficiency percentage for each period, while Mr. Connole calculated the disruption 

damages by multiplying the period operating costs by the loss of efficiency percentage 

for each period. Plaintiff claims that assessing damages according to the amount billed

based upon the unit price ignores the actual cost incurred. Defendant responds that the 

trial court did not err in adopting Mr. Guthrie‟s assessment because the actual cost 

incurred by Plaintiff included the inefficiencies as a result of the loss of access. 

“The purpose of assessing damages in a breach of contract suit is to place the 

plaintiff, as nearly as possible, in the same position he would have had if the contract had 
- 21 -

been performed.” Wilhite v. Brownsville Concrete Co., 798 S.W.2d 772, 775 (Tenn. Ct.

App. 1990). A trial court‟s determination regarding the proper amount of damages is a 

question of fact. GSB Contractors, Inc. v. Hess, 179 S.W.3d 535, 541 (Tenn. Ct. App.

2005) (citing Beaty v. McGraw, 15 S.W.3d 819, 827 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)). “„However, 

the choice of the proper measure of damages is a question of law to be decided by the 

court.‟” BankcorpSouth Bank, 223 S.W.3d at 228 (quoting Beaty v.. McGraw, 15 S.W.3d 

819, 827 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)). “While the amount of damages to be awarded in a 

given case is not controlled by fixed rules of law or mathematical formulas, [ ] the 

evidence upon which a party relies to prove damages must be sufficiently certain to 

enable the trier of fact, using its discretion, to make a fair and reasonable assessment of 

damages[.]” Id. at 230. “„The law does not require exactness of computation in suits that 

involve a question of damages growing out of contract or tort.‟” Id. (quoting St. John v. 

Bratton, 150 S.W.2d 727, 729 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1941)). Relative to construction contracts, 

this court has found, 

In the context of a construction project . . . we find that it is reasonably 

foreseeable that a contractor whose ability to complete its work is impaired 

by the owner and whose performance is thereby substantially delayed will 

suffer direct damages and that the extent of these damages will depend 

upon the unique facts of each case. These damages can include, among 

other things, increased payroll and other labor costs, increased material 

costs, costs resulting from the loss of efficiency of the use of equipment, 

increased costs for extended bonding and insurance coverage, and other 

increased overhead items that can reasonably be attributed to the 

performance of the work that was delayed.

Moore Constr. Co. v. Clarksville Dept. of Elec., 707 S.W.2d 1, 15 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985).

The trial court in this case chose the measured mile method as the appropriate 

measure of damages and awarded disruption damages in the amount of $369,871.66, 

thereby rejecting Mr. Connole‟s final computation of disruption damages in the amount 

of $1,087,502. In support of its position, Plaintiff cited two Pennsylvania cases, which 

are not binding upon this court. Moreover, adopting Mr. Connole‟s computation of 

disruption damages would have resulted in a total award of $1,268,204.84, a sum the 

court was clearly unwilling to award as evidenced by its statements following the trial. 

The court stated, 

And in looking at these damages, the Court intends to cut them down there 

to what the Court things is reasonable. . . .
- 22 -

You know, just – I just don‟t think it‟s right to say the project doubled in 

cost to the Airport. And, you know, one thing that they say that I do 

strongly agree with is you bid a bunch of projects. If you just accidentally 

underbid it, I can‟t do anything about that. That‟s just part of doing 

business.

While the court utilized the measured mile method in assessing disruption damages, it 

was not limited to either expert‟s computation of damages. We uphold the court‟s award 

of damages as a fair and reasonable assessment of the damages sustained by Plaintiff as a 

result of Defendant‟s breach.

C.

Defendant argues that the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest when 

the amount of the award was not reasonably ascertainable or reasonable given the 

excessive amount of damages sought by Plaintiff. Plaintiff responds that the trial court 

did not err in awarding prejudgment interest at the rate of 10 percent. 

The trial court may award prejudgment interest “as an element of, or in the nature 

of, damages . . . in accordance with the principles of equity at any rate not in excess of a 

maximum effective rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-

123. “The usual means of compensating for [loss of use of funds] is the allowance of 

interest. Interest recovered in order to make the obligee whole is the relief usually 

sought, and the allowance of prejudgment interest under such circumstances is „familiar 

and almost commonplace.‟” Mitchell v. Mitchell, 876 S.W.2d 830, 832 (Tenn. 1994) 

(quoting Deas v. Deas, 774 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tenn. 1989)). “The purpose of 

[prejudgment] interest is to fully compensate a plaintiff for the loss of the use of funds to 

which he or she was legally entitled, not to penalize a defendant for wrongdoing.” 

Hunter v. Ura, 163 S.W.3d 686, 706 (Tenn. 2005) (quoting Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 

S.W.2d 920, 927 (Tenn. 1998)).

In determining whether to award prejudgment interest, courts should consider the 

principles of equity and two additional factors. Mitchell, 876 S.W.2d at 830. First, an 

award of interest is allowed when “the amount of the obligation is certain” or reasonably 

ascertainable “by a proper accounting” and “is not disputed on reasonable grounds.” 

Myint, 970 S.W.2d at 927. Second, an award of interest is allowed when “the existence 

of the obligation itself is not disputed on reasonable grounds.” Id. However, “[t]he 

uncertainty of either the existence or amount of an obligation does not mandate a denial 

of prejudgment interest, and a trial court‟s grant of such interest is not automatically an 

abuse of discretion, provided the decision was otherwise equitable.” Id. at 928.
- 23 -

Here, the amount of the obligation was reasonably ascertainable through the use of 

the measured mile method, and the award of interest was equitable because Plaintiff lost 

the use of the funds while the case progressed in extensive litigation. Moreover, the 

court‟s decision to award prejudgment interest at a statutory rate of 10 percent was 

wholly within the court‟s discretion. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-123. Following our 

review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding 

prejudgment interest at the rate of 10 percent.

D.

Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in awarding discretionary costs to 

Plaintiff. Plaintiff responds that the court did not err. In awarding discretionary costs, 

the court stated as follows: 

. . . with discretionary costs being awarded in the sum of $1,920.00 for the 

plaintiff‟s expert‟s attendance at trial, in the sum of $1,800.00 for one-half 

of the plaintiff‟s expert‟s time for traveling to and from the trial, in the sum 

of $400 for the plaintiff‟s expert‟s time for calculating damages to 

supplement his testimony pursuant to the request of the Chancellor, in the 

sum of $600 for the charges of the defendant‟s expert for giving a 

deposition, and in the sum of $5,989.70 for the court reporter‟s invoices 

after subtracting for mileage and document scanning, for a total award of 

discretionary costs in the sum of $9,989.79.

A “prevailing party” may request discretionary costs pursuant to Rule 54.02(2) of the 

Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides, in pertinent part,

Costs not included in the bill of costs prepared by the clerk are allowable 

only in the court‟s discretion. Discretionary costs allowable are: reasonable 

and necessary court reporter expenses for depositions or trials, reasonable 

and necessary expert witness fees for depositions (or stipulated reports) and 

for trials, reasonable and necessary interpreter fees not paid pursuant to 

Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 42, and guardian ad litem fees; travel 

expenses are not allowable discretionary costs.

The purpose of awarding discretionary costs is to help “make the prevailing party whole,” 

not to punish the losing party. Owens v. Owens, 241 S.W.3d 478, 496-97 (Tenn. Ct. App.

2007). When deciding whether to award discretionary costs under Rule 54.04(2), the trial

court should:
- 24 -

1) determine whether the party requesting the costs is the “prevailing 

party,”

2) limit awards to the costs specifically identified in the rule,

3) determine whether the requested costs are necessary and reasonable, 

and

4) determine whether the prevailing party has engaged in conduct 

during the litigation that warrants depriving it of the discretionary 

costs to which it might otherwise be entitled.

Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Jefferson, 104 S.W.3d 13, 35–36 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) 

(citations omitted). The burden is on the movant to convince the trial court that it is 

entitled to discretionary costs. Carpenter v. Klepper, 205 S.W.3d 474, 490 (Tenn. Ct.

App. 2006); however, as a general matter, courts should “award discretionary costs to a 

prevailing party if the costs are reasonable and necessary and if the prevailing party has 

filed a timely and properly supported motion.” Jefferson, 104 S.W.3d at 35.

Rule 54.02(2) specifically excludes travel expenses, whether for mileage or time 

spent traveling. See generally Magness v. Couser, No. M2006-00872-COA-R3-CV, 

2008 WL 204116, at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2008). These charges were not 

properly awarded as discretionary costs. In recognition of the court‟s discretion in such 

matters, we affirm the remainder of the award. The judgment of the trial court should be

modified to reflect the appropriate adjustment in the award of discretionary costs. 

V. CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified, and the case is remanded 

for such further proceedings as may be necessary. Costs of the appeal are taxed to the 

appellant, Greeneville-Greene County Airport Authority. 

_________________________________ 

JOHN W. McCLARTY, JUDGE