### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE O ct obe r 8, 200 3 S es sio n PORTLAND UTI LI TI ES CONST RUCTIO N COMPANY, LLC v.

CHASE CREE K, LLC ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 99-2471-I Ir vin H. Kilcrease , Jr., Chancellor

No. M2002- 02886-COA-R 3-CV - F iled April 7, 2004

A utiliti es contra ctor sued a subdivision developer for payment for wo rk i t p erformed on the subdivision’s infrastructure . The c ourt found that the de veloper was oblig ated to honor its contrac t by paying f or work w ith a value of $313,829. The court also found that the de veloper was e ntitled to an offs e t o f

$ 5 5 , 9 5 5 f

o r d a ma g e s r e s u lt in g f

r o m d e f e c ts inth e c o n tr a c to r ’ s p e r f o r man c e
. T he d e v e lo p e r ar g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rr o n e o u s ly d e c li n e d to g r a n t i t a d d it io n a l o f f s e ts

. We a ff irm th e tria l c ou rt

.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Aff irm ed and Rem anded
P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., and F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., joined.
T. Turne r Sno d gra s s , Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellants, Chase Cre ek, LL C and Tra veler s Casualty and Surety

Company

of America.
J oe A. Conner , Sheri A. F ox , Chattanoog a, T en n es s ee , for the a ppellee, Portland U tilit ies Con str uc tio n Co mpany , L

L C.
OP IN ION
I. A C ONS T RUCT I ON C ONT RACT
Th is c a se aro se fr om a

c on tr a c t e xec ute d o n M a y 14 , 1 99 7, be tw e e n o wn e r- de ve lop e r C ha se Creek, L .L .C., (“the de veloper ”) and Portland Utilit ies Construction C o m p any , L .L .C. (“the c on tr a c tor ” ). Th e de ve lop e r p la nn e d to bu ilda re sid e nti a l su bd ivi sio n o n 4 3 lo ts that w e repa rt ly w i t h i n D a v i d s o n C o u n t y a n d p art l y w i t h i n W i l l i a m s o n C o u n t y.E rnes t W o o d co ck, P o rt l and ’ s p ri nci p al ow ner, t est i f i ed t hat K enny K ep l ey o ri gi nal l y int end ed t o bid o n t he 1 C h a se C r e e k c o n tra c t, b u t co u ld no t p ro c u re a re q u ire d b o n d . K e p le y c o n ta c te d P o rtla n d a n d a sk e d tha t co m p a n y to f ur ni s h t he bo nd an d t o a ct as t he gen er al ut i l i t i es cont r act or, wi t h K epl ey doi ng t he act ual wor k. T he proof s hows t hat the d e v e lo p e r w a s fully a w a re o f t h is a rr a n g e m e n t. -2- Th e te rm s o f the c on tr a c t ob lig a te d Po rt la ndto r e mov e tw o b arn s f ro m th e pr op e rty , to re mov e a po ndby fi lli ng it w ithc omp a c te d o ns ite mate ri a ls, a ndto i ns ta ll s torm dr a ins , w a te r l ine s, sewe r lines, and e lectric al conduit. Gra ding of the roa ds was also include d i n t h e co ntrac t, but paving was to be done by another contra ctor. Gra ding and prepa ration of the lots themselves we re also to be done by other contra ctors. The contra ct at issue did not identify a g ener al contra ctor for the projec t, but the evidence sugg ests that the developer and its age nt Patrick Malone pe rformed that function.
Al tho ug h th e c on tr a c t in c lud e d a lump- su m pric e fo r “ sit e pr e pa ratio n, ” thepa

rt ie s r e fe r t o it a s a unit price contra ct. Items such as excavation of solid rock and ba ckfilling wer e to be c harg ed on theba sis of

thequ a nti tie s r e qu ir e d, be c aus e th ere was no way to d e te rm inein a dv a nc e e xac tly how many cubic y ards of solid roc k would have to be remove d or how many tons of crushe d stone would be nee ded for

backf illing. Pay ment was to be ma de biwee kly as work w as complete d. The contra ct did not contain a liquidated damag es provision or a g uaranteed c ompletion date. The plans f

or the proje ct wer e approve d by the State of Te nnessee in J uly of 1997, and w ork beg an shortly

there afte r. It did not take long f or p roblems to arise. T he contr actor initiallymade Ke ple y & Son s it s su bc on tr a c tor fo r e xca vatio n, ro a d g ra din g , a ndpo ndc omp a c tio n. Af te r the fi rs t 1
we e k, Ke ple y ’s c re w o nly wo rk e d o n th e pr oje c t sp or adi c a lly , a ndin N ov e mbe r o f 1 99 7, Cha se Cr e e k re qu e ste d that the su bc on tr a c tor be re mov e d f or abs e nte e ism

a ndfo r o ve rs tatin g thequ a nti ty of rock i t h ad ex ca vated. Portland a g ree d, and dec ided to complete the w ork with its own employ ees.
Un fo rtun a te ly , n e w p ro ble ms a ro se . A c c or din g to C ha se Cr e e k, mo st of tho se pr ob le ms resulted f rom the contra ctor’s f

ailure to do the w ork cor

rec tly the first time, leading t o d elay s and to a dd iti on a l e xpe ns e s f

or re pa iring or re do ing de fe c tiv e wo rk

. Portland de nie d that it wa s at f ault , a ndpo int e d in ste a d to a

nu mbe r o f o the r f

a c tor s, inc lud ing a lle g e d er ro rs by su rv e y or s, e ng ine e rs , and other contra ctors. The proof showe d that construction of hous es on individual lots began as early as April of 1998 and continued dur i ng the infra structure work. Portland claimed that the combined ef

fec ts o f u n u s u all y

wet we ather

and hea vy

construction tra ffic on g rade d but unpaved roads c aused ma ssive erosion, forcing it to reg rade the same r oads threeor four times.
The infrastruc ture wor

k took far long er tha n the deve loper thoug ht rea sonable, a nd far more solid rock had to be re moved than wa s anticipated. A lthough the ow ner of Portland Utilit ies testified that storm sewer s, water

lines and storm drains were “pre tty well fini shed” by J une 1998, additional road w ork was still neede d and elec trical conduit still had to be installed. Portland continued to work on thesit e un til May

of 19 99 . Final app ro va l of its wo rk wa s su bs e qu e ntl y

ob ta ine d, bu t Ch a se Creek stoppe d making payments to Portland after A ug ust 1998.P o rtla n d fi le d a sim ilar C o m p la int in th e C h a n c e ry C o u rt o f W ill ia m so n C o u n ty. It w a s c o n so lid a te d w ith this 2

o ne b y A greed O rder. -3- The co n t rac tor submitted a final bill to the developer for a rema ining ba lance of over $3 00 ,0 00 . Ch a se Cr e e k d e c lin e d to make a ny pay me nt. OnMay

20 , 1 99 9, thec on tr a c tor

se nt a notice of non-payment to the develope r. On J une 10, 1999, notices of mec hanics a nd materia lmen’s l i e n s w e r e f

i l e d w i t h t h e R e g i s t e r

o f D e e d s o f b o t h D a v i d s o n a n d W i l l i a m s o n C o u n t y.
II. C OU R T P ROCE E DI NGS On Aug ust 30, 1999, Portland Utiliti es filed a Complaint i n the Chance ry Court of Davidson Countyasking the court to order Chase Creek to pay it t h e b alanc e which it wa s entitled to for mate ri als i t pr ov ide d a ndwo rk it c omp le te d f

or thede ve lop e r. Tr a ve le rs Ca su a lty a ndSur e ty 2 Company of America wa s later a dded as a defe ndant pursuant to Te nn. Code Ann. § 66-11- 142.
Chase Cree k filed an A nswer on O ctober 5. Th e d evelope r alleg ed that the c ontrac tor’s claims wer e based upon materia ls which wer e not incorpor ated into the proje ct or not docume nted, included wor

k that was ne cessa

ry only to corre ct the contr actor ’s own mistakes, and inc luded work which wa s of no bene fit to the project. Chase Creek a lso coun t er -c o m plained for additional e xpe ns e s it

inc ur re d infi nis hin g or

c or re c tin g Portland ’s wo rk , a s we ll as fo r los t pro fi ts andint e re st e xpe ns e a lle g e dly

ari sin g fr om the c on tr a c tor ’s de la y s.
Th e he ari ng of

thematte r b e g a n o n M a y 6, 20 02 , a nd to ok th ree day s ina ll. Erne st Woodcock, owner

of P ortland Uti lities, was the primary witness for the plaintiff. His testimonywas consistent with that of five of his supervisors who wor

ked on the pr oject as to the ne cessity to repe at c e rt a in w or

k b e c aus e of

e rr or s intheplans a ndda ma g e c aus e d b y oth e r c on tr a c tor s.
T h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s c h i e f

w i t n e s s w a s P a tr i c k

M a l o n e , a

h o m e b u i l d e r

a n d f o r m e r r e a l e s t a te ag ent who supervised the projec t for Chase Cre ek, and was one of the de veloper ’s three owner s. Mr. Ma lon e re c ite d a

lon g lit a ny

of g ri e va nc e s a g a ins t Po rt la nda ndof thec os ts h e inc ur

re d a s a re su lt of delay s in the completion of those parts of the projec t that were Por t l an d ’s re sponsibili ty . On cross-e x amination, he re luctantly acknow ledg e d

th at er r o r s and delay s by

other c ontrac tors may

have contributed to the diff

iculties Portland experience d.
For example, Mr. Malone admitted that the plans g iven to Portland showed a r oad width of 29 fee t. As we noted a

bove, the c ontrac tor had to g rade the same roads m ore than once be cause of damage ca u s ed b ya combination of he avy rains and c onstruction traff ic. Afte r Portland finished wh a t it ho ped wou ld be a fi na l g ra din g , th e pa vin g c on tr a c tor tol d th e uti lit ie s c on tr a c tor that hi s ma c hin e ry

re qu ir e d a

ro a d w idth o f 31 fe e t in or de r t o p ro pe rl y ins ta ll c ur

bs a ndpa vin g . A s a

re su lt, Portland had to do the g rading y et ag ain.
Mr. Malone a lso admitted that his electrica l c ontrac tor neg lected to f urnish Portland with the specific ations for install at i o n of ele ctrica l conduit until after the c onduit had been installed in the-4-

same tre nches w ith the latera l se wer lines, and the tre nches ha d been f illed in. After Portland wa s informed that NE S required a vertica l displac ement of at least 18 inches betwee n the conduit and the sewe r lines, Portland had to dig up and dee pen the utility trenc hes.
An oth e r a re a of c on te nti on wa s th e a mou nt o f cr us he d ston e us e d in th e pr oje c t a s b a c kf ill

. The c ontrac tor had orig inally estimated that 8,000 tons (at $13.29 pe r ton) would be enoug h. The actua l amount billed for and pr oven to have b ee n used wa s over 17,000 tons. Mr. Woodcock testified t hat because of the depth of the trenche s, OSHA reg ulations require d that trenc h box es be used. Wider trenc hes had to be dug in order to install the t renc h box es, and since the tre nches w ere under the roadw ay , eng ineering r equire ments dictated the use of stone to fill in the entire tre nch.
The de fendant called B ernie Auld, a civil en gi n ee r, t o testify as an e x pert witness on a nu mbe r o f m a tte rs , in c lud ing thea mou nt o f c ru sh e d sto ne thec on tr a c tor sh ou ld h a ve us e d. Mr . A uld testified that “Metro Specifications” for calc ulating the amount of crushe d stone nece ssary to be used as bac kfill for installation of storm sewer s, water lines and sanitary

sewe rs re sulted in a fig ure of 11,636 tons. Under c ross-examination, he admitted he ha d m ad e an er ror on storm sew er calc ulations of up to 3,000 tons, and that his calcul ati on included no conside ration of late ral lines ru nn ing of

f the ma in s e we r l ineor of thee xtra de pthre qu ir e d f

or e le ctr ica l con du it . He a lso acknow ledg ed that he w as not familiar w ith the actual c onditions present in the projec t unde r re view.
At t h e conclusion of the pr oof, the c hance llor declined to he ar c losing a rg uments and announce d that he wanted both parties to submit pr oposed finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law fo r h is c on sid e ratio n. I n thos e de ta ile d s ub mis sio ns , th e de ve lop e r c on te nd e d th a t it wa s e nti tle d to an off set of over $245,000 ag ainst Portland’s claim, while Portland conte nded that the de veloper was entitled at m o s t t o o ffse ts of $55,955. I n order s dated Oc tober 9 a nd October 23, 2002, the court a do pte d Po rt la nd ’s a na ly sis

. The c ourt fo u n d t hat Portland had c ompleted its contrac t in an amount of time that was rea sonable unde r the circumstance s and that the delay s the deve loper c omplained of we re due to the heavy rains, the err ors of survey ors and eng ineer s, and the activities of ot her c ontrac tors. The c ourt a lso fo un d th a t Po rt la ndwa s e nti tle d to be pa id f or a ll the c ru sh e d s ton e that it us e d for b a c kf

ill , beca use conditions at the wor

k site and OSHA re g ulations require d the us e of f ar morestone than was a nticipated.
Th e c ou rt did a wa

rd the de ve lop e r thr e e of

fs e ts, a mou nti ng to $ 55 ,9 55 , to be app lie d a g a ins t the $313,829 contra ct price. These included $23,395 to compensate it for extra site work r equire d on the lot where the pond had be en, bec ause K epley & Sons had use d construction debris to fill t he po ndins te a d o f e ng ine e re d f ill ; $20,1 60 fo r c le a nu p w or k th e de ve lop e r h a d to do aro un d th e sit e of thec on tr a c tor ’s e xca vatio ns ; and $1 2, 40 0 for c omp le tio n o f o ne c ul- de -s a c that w a s impr op e rl y g rade d by Portland. Chase Cree k appea led.-5- III
. I S S UE S ON A P P E AL
Since the chancellor ha s adopted the f indings of f

act submitted by

Po rt l and, they

have ex p l i ci t l y b ec ome the finding s of the court. Finding s of fa ct by a trial c ourt areentitled to a presumption of cor

rec tness on appea l, unless the evidenc e pre ponderates oth er wi s e. Rule 13(d) Te nn . R. Ap p. P.
Chase Cree k arg ues that it was entitled to have the judg m en t ag ainst it offset by four a dd iti on a l c la ims that w e re e ith e r dis a llo we d or no t sp e c if

ic a lly a dd re sse d b y

thetria l c ou rt . T he se items are ( 1) the costs it incurre d to reimburse the paving contr actor for pug mix which alleg edly was Portland’s responsibility to furnish, (2) c os t s o f $45,660 which Chase Cree k paid to other contra ctors, alleg edly

for the pur

pose of c orre cting or finishing construction workwhich wa s Portland’s obligation under the c ontrac t, (3) costs which w ere bi l l ed b y Portland as “e x tra wor

k,” but which Chase Cre ek alleg ed wa s actua lly require d under the contra ct, and (4) damag es for delay beca use, contra

ry to the t rial court’s finding s, the projec t was not completed in “ a re asonable time.” We will ex amine ea ch of the se cla ims in t urn.
A. T HE P UG M IX
The witnesse s testified that the normal sequence of steps for paving a roa d is first to gr ade the ea rth to the proper

slope, then to pour conc rete curbs o n ei t h er s i de of the road to pre vent the g rade d earth fro m b ei n g wa s hed or e roded a way . After the cur bs are done, a lay er of

g rave l or crushe d stone (which is ref err ed to as pug m ix ) i s added and l evele d to the correc t toleranc es. In the e ve nt o f h e a vy

rains be fo rea

fi na l lay e r o f a sp ha lt i s laid o n to p o f the pu g mix, the re is al so so me dang er of the mix being washe d away
. Thus, prompt follow-up by the paving contra ctor is nec essary to preserve the wor

k that has alre ady

been doneon the roa d. The proof shows that afte r Chase Cre ek experienc ed som e difficulty in finding a contra ctor to l a y thepu g mix, Po rt la nda g re e d to do the wo rk . Wh e n th e pa vin g c on tr a c tor pr e pa re d to be g in his po rt ionof

thewo rk , h e fo un d that the re we re low sp ots on the ro a d, a nd he a dd e d $ 7, 09 4 w orth of pug mix to completely

bring the roa ds up to subgr ade. T he develope r conte nds that the trial court sh ou ld h a ve g rante d it

a n o ff se t f or thi s a mou nt.
Mr. Woodcock testified that the roa ds wererea dy to be cur bed and pa ved by

November

of 1998. Bu t the paving contra ctor wa s not ready to beg in work until March of 1999. Mr. Malone faulted Portland f

or failing to take some unspecifie d preve ntive measure s to keep the pug mix from eroding in the intervening months.
Chase Cree k’s own witness, excavating c ontrac tor Michae l Bowe rs, testified that in the absenc e of c urbs, ra in and construc tion traffic will cause a lay er of pug mix to erode

. I n light of the wi nte r rains , the hil ly top og ra ph y of thesit e , a ndthec on tin uin g tr a ff ic on theinc omp le te ro a ds , it is unclear whether any kind of preve ntive measurewould have pr evente d the er osion that occurr ed.M r
. B ower s was al s o t he cont r act or w ho comp l et ed t he cul

- de- s ac for whi ch t he cour t awa r ded C has e Cre ek 3

a se to ff o f $ 1 2 ,4 0 0

. -6- Thus, we do not believe the evidenc e preponde rate s ag ainst the trial court’s finding that Chase Cree k was not entitled to an off

set for the additional expense.
B. C ORRE CT I ONS T O P ORT L AND ’ S W ORK
The a ppellant claimed that the trial court e rre d by failing to awar d it an offset for $20,500 that it p a id Wilso n Co ns truc tio n a nd$2 5, 16 0 th a t it pa id M ikeB ow e rs to w ide n a ndba c kf ill thero a ds , slope the banks, and remove rock and debris fr om the site. The prima ry p roblem with these c laims is a failure of proof on the pa

rt of Chase Cre ek. Whil e the plaintiff must ca rry t he burde n of proof

on its own claims, the burden shifts to the defe ndant to establish any o f t h e counter claims it asserts. Hey er-J ordan & Associates, Inc . v. Jordan , 801 S.W .2d 814, 822 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990), Nelson v. Richardson, 626 S.W .2d 702, 706 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).
We n otetha

t Patric k Malo ne te sti fi e d w ith ou t e la bo ratio n th a t Ch a se Cr e e k’ s p a y me nt t o Albert Wilson was for wor k that Portland was oblig ated to do under its contract. He relies on an un date d w or

k o rd e r f ro m Wils on Con str

uc tio n, whi ch des cri be s th e wo rk a s, “ sit e wo rk

ba c kf ill roadw ork bac khoe slope ba nks clea nup $13,000/$7,500 rock a nd dirt removed on lots.”
Whil e Portland’s contra ct did inc lude backf ill and roadw ork, it did not include work on the lots themselves. Furthe r, Mr. Malone’s own testimony shows that he instructed Portland to plac e excavated site materials on many of the lots in the subdivision, and that the site w as a mess in part beca use of the a ctivities of the homebuilders. Mr. Wilson was not called upon to testify , so we ha ve no way of knowing how much of his wor k (if any ) shoul d actua lly

have be en cove red by

Portland’s contra ct.
Tu rn ing to the c la im ba se d on the wo rk pe rf orme d by Mik e B ow e rs , th e re c or d c on ta ins six statements by

the excavating contra ctor for work he did be tween Marc h 3 and Aug ust 26, 1999. The total billed am o u n ts to ex actly $25,160. Portland arg ues that it can only be re sponsible for wor

k done up to the end of

May 1999, for by

that date a ll the road a nd utilit y work ha d been a cce pted by theMe tr op oli ta n G ov e rn me nt, a ndPortlandha d c omp le te d it s c on tr a c t.
We note that the four statements dated prior to June 1999 are for a total of $20,160. The trial court’s or der state s under the c ateg ory of Site Work - Cleanup, “[t] h e C o u rtfinds, over Portland Utiliti es’ objec tion, that Chase Creek is e ntitled to credit ag ainst the amount due to Portland Utilities fo r the e xca vatio n c la ims in the a mou nt o f $ 20 ,1 60 .” It th us app e ars that Ch a se Cr e e k is a sking thi s court to g ive it a sec ond awa rd for the same damag es that it alrea dy has bee n allowed to re cover
. 3-7-

The stateme nts on the $5,000 excluded by the court’s order simplyrec ite hourly

char g es for equipment used by

Mr. B ower s, including a dump truck, bull dozer and backhoe, with no indi cation o t h er than the phra se “Site Work” as to e x actly what wor

k was pe rformed. While we ar e not convince d that Portland is imm unized ag ainst claims for work perf ormed byother c ontrac tors afte r t h e end of

May 1999, Chase Cree k has pre sented no proof that the statements ar e for work that Portland’s contra ct obligated it to do. I n light of unc ontradicte d testimonythat the activities of other c on tr a c tor s r e su lte d inde bris an d da ma g e to the sit e , we do no t bel ie ve that Ch a se Cr e e k c arrie d it s burden of proof, or that the evidenc e pre p o nderates ag ainst the trial cour t’s decision not to awa

rd additional reimburse ment to the develope r for its pay ments to Mr. Wi lson and Mr. B ower s. C. E XT RA W ORK
The a ppellan t claimed that the tria l court er red in a war ding Portland $17,803 f or work the develope r insisted was included in its orig inal contra ct, but which the contra ctor c laimed was a later addition. This included seeding and mulching along side curbs, r aising fire hy drants, locating and raisi ng me te r b oxe s a ndma nh olec ov e rs , a ndwo rk on c a tc h b a sin s.
Mr . M a lon e a dmi tte d th a t se e din g a ndmul c hin g we reno t men tio ne d in the orig ina l c on tr a c t, but stated that they

wer e included in the plans g iven to the contra ctor, a nd that “I j u s t t o ok it for g rante d the y we reg oin g to d o it .” Cha se Cr e e k a rg ue s w ith ou t c iti ng to any e vid e nc e or

auth ority that such items “ar e wor k normally

perf ormed by a contr actor

or ar e re q uired by

the plans or sp e c if ic a tio ns .” We d o n ot b e lie ve thi s is su ff ic ie nt to pr ov e that see din g a ndmul c hin g we rewi thi n the scope of the c ontrac t betwee n Chase Cree k and Portland Utilities.
I nstallation of fire hy drants, meter box es , ma

n h o le c overs and catc h basins, on the other hand, is ex plicitlymentioned in the contra ct. B ut the rec ord shows t h at af t er Portland init ially

installed these items, the trucks of contractors and suppliers damag ed many of them numerous times, for cing Portland to repair

or re place them without rece iving a dditional r ei mbursement. F urther, staking err ors by the s urvey or compelled Portland to dig up and move eve n undamag ed catch basins. The contra ct made sta

king the responsibilityof the owner. Since ther e would not have been a need f or final chang es to these it ems if it were not for the a ctions of other c ontrac tors and/or the de veloper , we do no t be lie ve thee vid e nc e pr e po nd e rate s a g a ins t th e tria l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing that su c h a dju stm e nts wer e “e x tra” and that Portland wa s entitled to reimbursement.
D. D E L AY D A M A GES
Whe n a c on tr a c t doe s not inc lud e a sp e c if ic c omp le tio n d a te , it

is i mpl ie d th a t th e ob lig or is duty -bound t o complete its perf ormanc e withi n a re asonable time. Mi no r v . Mino r, 863 S.W .2d 51 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). “ What constitut es a r easona ble time within which an act is to be per formed wher e a c ontrac t is sil ent upon t he subj ect depends on the s ubject matter of t he contr act, the situation of the pa rties, their intention in what they contemplated at the time the contra ct was ma de, and the cir cum st ances att end in g the p erfo rm ance. " Minor , 863 S.W .2d at 54 (quoting 17A Am.J ur.2dC h a se C re e k d id no t i n fo rm P o rtla n d tha t i t i n te n d e d to ho ld the c o n tra c to r l ia b le fo r in te re st p a ym e n ts o n it s 4

con s t r u ct i on l oan s u n t i l a f t er Por t l an d f

i l ed i t s compl ai n t

. I n a n ot h er c as e i n v ol v i n g r et ai n ag e of f u n ds a n d c on s t r u ct i on d e la ys, this c o u rt h e ld tha t t h e d a m a g e s the p la intiff c o n tra c to r w a s e n tit le d to c o llec t d id no t i n c lud e inte re st it c o u ld hav e e ar ned on u npai d cont r act f un ds, becau s e t he acc r ual of s uch i nt er es t was cons i dere d t o be a s peci al damage t hat
w a s n o t w ith in th e c o n te m p la tio n o f t h e p a rtie s. M oo r e Co nst r uct i on v. Cl ark s vi l l e D epart m ent of E l ect r i ci t

y, 707 S. W

. 2d 1, 15 ( T e n n
. Ct

. Ap p 1 98 5)

. Al t h ou g h t he det ai l s o f t hi s c a s e a r e s om e w h a t di f fe r e n t , w e be l i e v e t h e s a me a n a lysis w o u ld a p p ly. -8- Con tr a c ts § 48 0 ( 19 91 )) . T he tria l c ou rt in this c a se sp e c if

ic a lly fo un d tha t Port la ndc omp le te d it s work within a re asonable time.
Be cause of the c omplex nature of larg e construc tion projects, it i s n o t u ncommon for the work of a contra ctor to be de lay ed due to the a ction of other c ontrac tors on the same p roj ect. See ACG, Inc. v . Southeast Elevator, Inc

. , 9 12 S.W. 2d16 3 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 5) ; Airline Constr uction, In c . v . B ar r, 80 7 S. W.2 d 2 47 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 0) ; Moore Const. Co., Inc. v. Clarksv ille Dept. of Electricity, 70 7 S. W.2 d 1 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 1 98 5) ; V. L. Nicholson C o. v. Transcon Inv . and Financial Ltd., Inc., 595 S.W .2d 474 (Tenn. 1980)

. Even whe n there is a clause in the contra ct providing for liquidated damag es in the eve nt of delay , such dama g es will not be awa rded to a party whose a ctions contributed to the de lay . 807 S.W .2d at 262, 595 S.W.2d at 484
Th e tria l c ou rt ’s f

ina l or de r c on ta ine d d e ta ile d f ind ing s o n th e c aus e of

thede la y s in Portland’s perf

ormanc e. These included abnorma lly wet we ather conditions from Dec ember 1997 t h ro u gh M ay1 9 9 8 , t h e u n ex p ec t ed l yl ar ge q u an t i t y o f r o ckt h ath ad t o b e e x ca v at ed , an d d am age cause d b y d e li v e r y tr u c k s , h o mec o n tr a c to r s a n d o th e r tr a f f ic

. A ll o f th e s e f in d in g s ar e s u p p orted by evidenc e in the re cord, inc luding testimony by the develope r’s own witnesses. It a ppear s to us that th e e vid e nc e do e s n ot p re po nd e rate a g a ins t the tria l cou rt ’s fi nd ing that Po rt la ndc omp le te d it s work within an a mount of time that was re asonable under the circ umstances.
B ut ev e n if we fo un d that Port la nd did no t comple te its wo rk in a re a so na ble tim e , it wo uld still be up to Chase Cre ek to prove that it had been damag ed by the delay , and to prove the extent o f it s a ll e g e d d a ma g e s
. T h e tria l c o u rt f o u n d th a t th e d e v e lo p e r

f a il e d to p r o v e it s d a ma g e s
. We ag ree
. Th e de ve lop e r a

rg ue s th a t it is e nti tle d to a n o ff se t of $6 5, 66 1 f

or a ll l oa n in te re st p a y me nts it made after J uly 1998, beca use “. . . had Portland mere ly completed the r oads within ten months and maintained an org anized construction site, it is submi tted that Chase Cree k could have g ener ated sufficie nt sale proc eeds to fully pay its loan in J une, 1998.” 4
Chase C ree k claims that the poor condition of t he roads deter red prospective pr operty

buy ers from purc hasing its lot s, thus preventing the deve loper fr o m p ay i n g off its construc tion loan as quickly as it otherwise would have been able t o. It is unclea r how the de veloper

could have proved how many more lots it would have sold if not f or the condition of the roa ds. I n any case , the proof showed that lot sales did occur during the period that the roa ds remaine d unfinished, with three sales in 1997 after

the sig ning of

the contra ct, and e leven sa les in 1998.-9-

The de veloper

arg ues that “[b]ecause of site condi tions, no sales weremade be tween November

20, 1998 and March 12, 1999 other than one sa le to a member of the Chase Creek Deve lopment entity .” This period corre sponds to the i nterva l betwee n Portland lay ing dow n the pug mix and the paving contra ctor finishing the roads. Howeve r, as we indicated above , damag e to the g rade d roadw ay

by construction tra ffic and the paving contra ctor’s ow n lack o f promptness were signific ant fa ctors in the delay of road completion. Thus, if the developer suff ere d any damag es as a re sult of this delay , they cannot be attributed to Portland’s ac tions alone.

IV. C ONCL US I ON Upon examination of the rec ord, it appea rs to us that prog ress on the subdivision was impeded by

lack of coordination between the acti v i t ies of various contrac tors who worke d on dif fe re nt p art s o f the same pr oje c t at th e sa me tim e , dif fi c ult ie s whi c h we ree xac e rb a te d b y un us ua lly we t w e a the r. Th e de ve lop e r ha s cho se n to attribu te a ll i ts d a ma g e s to on ly on e of tho se c on tr a c tor s, despite proof

showing that many

others (inc luding itself) wer e also at fault.
Th e tria l c ou rt

a g re e d w iththede ve lop e r that th e uti lit ie s c on tr a c tor ha d to be ar r e sp on sib ili ty for the e x tra e x penses the developer incurre d as a r esult of the contr actor ’s er rors, a nd reduc ed the amount it was entitled to collect on its contra ct by the amount of such e x penses. The develope r arg ued on appe al that the trial c ourt err ed in dec lining to awa rd it addit i o n al offse ts ag ainst the utilit ies contra ctor. We do not ag ree , beca use the develope r has failed to pr ove that the contra ctor was re sponsible for those a dditional damag es. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is aff irmed. We rema nd this case to the C hance ry Court of Da vid so n Cou nty fo r fu rthe r p ro c e e din g s c on sis te nt w iththi s o pin ion . T a x the c os ts o n a pp e a l to theapp e llant, Cha se Cr e e k, L .L .C.

___________________________________ PATRI CI A J . COTTRELL , J UDGE