Opinion ID: 2217468
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: The Department argues that the circuit court erred in making a de novo determination of the factual classification of the excavation inasmuch as the contract vested the authority to make this determination solely in the Department's engineer. In Kyburz v. State, 79 S.D. 114, 117, 108 N.W.2d 645, 647 (1961), we stated: The rule appears to be well established that parties to a building or construction contract may designate an engineer or other person to determine questions related to its execution and that the parties are bound by [the] determination of matters within the scope of [that] authority and when made in good faith. Another statement of the general rule on this issue is as follows: We find neither defendant nor plaintiff has correctly stated the law applicable to the case at hand. The pertinent rule ... is to the effect that a contract clause providing the architect or engineer shall be the final arbiter of disputes is binding upon the parties unless the architect or engineer's decision is manifestly arbitrary or rendered in bad faith. J. H. Jenkins Contractor, Inc. v. City of Denham Springs, 216 So.2d 549, 553 (La. App.1968). See Annot. 54 A.L.R. 1255 (1928), 110 A.L.R. 137 (1937). Without detailing the evidence, we conclude that the record supports the trial court's finding that the Department was arbitrary and capricious and guilty of an abuse of discretion in making its determination regarding the nature and extent of the rock excavation. Suffice it to say that there is evidence that the Department's project engineer was less than candid in his communications with Brezina concerning this matter. Moreover, it appears that he deliberately delayed in making his measurements of the area of the rock in order to frustrate Brezina's attempts to obtain full compensation for the rock it found necessary to excavate. Given this behavior on the part of its employee, the Department will not be heard to complain of the trial court's ruling. Cf. Northern Improvement Co. v. S. D. State Hwy., 267 N.W.2d 208 (S.D.1978).