Opinion ID: 2124349
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Other changed-conditions claims.

Text: R. W. also claims that it encountered materially different water levels and soil types than those indicated in the contract drawings. The trial court concluded that, despite some variations in regard to these conditions, the water levels and soil types which R. W. encountered were substantially like those indicated on the contract drawings, or those which could reasonably be inferred from the contract drawings, considered in their entirety. [34] We agree. As for water levels, R. W. could not reasonably believe that the water level at boring No. 6 was only 72 feet, when all of the other borings in that area indicated water levels of between 98 and 120 feet. The only reasonable inference was that the water levels would be at the 100-foot level or higher. Nor is the fact that all of the water levels actually encountered were slightly higher than this, averaging about 120 feet, a material difference from this inferred level of 100 or more feet. As for soil types, the contract drawings indicate a glacial till, the character of which varies drastically within short distances. Under these circumstances, R. W. cannot complain that boring No. 9 did not correctly indicate the soil types at the point where it shut down, when boring No. 9 was taken at a point more than 200 feet past the point where it shut down. Because of our decision herein and our consequent remand, we do not reach the merits of MSC's cross-appeal. By the Court. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.