Opinion ID: 1392621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the evapco coil

Text: Norfolk Air purchased from a materialman, and installed on the roof of the life science building, an evaporative condenser, called the Evapco unit, for a system of coolers serving refrigerated boxes in the environmental laboratories. The Evapco unit contained a copper coil through which water was continuously circulated by a pump. In the fall of 1980, Norfolk Air suggested to the architect, through Creech, that an antifreeze solution should be introduced into the coil to prevent freezing. The architect informed Norfolk Air that freezing would not be a danger if the system was operating, because of the continuous circulation provided by the pump. On Thanksgiving weekend, 1980, a team of specialists from California, employed by another subcontractor, was conducting a series of tests in the laboratories. On Friday evening, having failed to complete their tests, they asked D.W. Phelps, Norfolk Air's supervisor, if they might return on Saturday in order to complete their testing so as to be able to return to California. Phelps said, [w]ell, I won't be here. So whatever you do, you'll have to shut [the pump] down when you leave. When work on the job resumed on Monday, it was discovered that the system had been shut down, the water in it had frozen, and the coil had developed approximately 100 leaks. Creech told Norfolk Air to immediately make the necessary repair so that the unit can be put into operation. Norfolk Air worked on the system over a period of months, attempting to repair the leaks. Eventually, Norfolk Air billed Creech $8,035.04 as an extra, more than the cost of a new coil, for the repair work. The contract made the architect the sole arbiter of what was to be billed as extra work, and what was to be included in the contract. The architect was also made the sole judge of satisfactory completion. The architect ruled that ODU was entitled to a new Evapco unit, not a repaired one, and refused to accept the installation after Norfolk Air had done its repair work. Norfolk Air then obtained a replacement unit from the supplier and installed it, billing Creech $7,338.13 as an additional extra for the cost of the new unit. The architect flatly refused to approve either the charge for repairs or the charge for replacement as an extra. At trial, over Creech's objection, the court submitted both extra claims to the jury. The jury's special verdicts found against Norfolk Air on its claim for repairs, but awarded Norfolk Air $7,338.13 for the cost of the coil replacement. Creech assigns error to the court's ruling submitting those claims to the jury. We think the court erred. Norfolk Air, because of the erroneous instructions to shut [the pump] down when you leave, given by its superintendent to the laboratory testing team from California, was responsible for the damage. Further, under the terms of its contract, Norfolk Air was expressly made responsible for work and equipment until finally inspected, tested, and accepted; it was also required to protect work against theft, injury or damage. Finally, Norfolk Air's contract provided: If there is disagreement as to whether an item of work is an extra or a part of the contract, the Architects' and Owners' authorized agent's decision on the matter will be final and binding for all parties. As noted above, the architect ruled against Norfolk Air on this claim. Thus, as a matter of law, the problems with the Evapco coil were the responsibility of Norfolk Air, not Creech. The court erred in submitting the issue to the jury and we will reverse the judgment insofar as it includes this item.