Opinion ID: 2317903
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Earth Excavation Claims.

Text: It seems to be undisputed that the earth excavation claim did not entail, or was not premised upon contentions of, extra work or changes in or addition to that required by the plans, specifications and addenda to the contract. Terminal's earth excavation claim, reduced to basics under the constructive fraud philosophy of the law hereinbefore discussed, essentially was that the engineer ( i.e., Bogert-Childs or its duly authorized representatives) arbitrarily refused to approve the excavation figures submitted by Terminal. (We do not overlook the testimony directed at Mr. Lincoln's personal ethics, but find it at the most a mere scintilla of evidence, unimportant under the circumstances relative to this claim.) The contract contemplated that work should be done at the direction of the Engineer (General Provisions, sect. G2). The Detailed Specifications expressly covered Earth Excavation in section 1 thereof. Sect. 1.5 expressly provided that Excavations shall be made to the lines approved by the Engineer which shall be of sufficient width outside the structures to give room for forming the pipe joints, or for placing and removing forms for concrete   , and Sect. 1.6 expressly provided (a)11 excavation carried beyond the lines and grades shown on the drawings or established by the Engineer, together with its disposal shall be at the Contractor's expense   . These are examples of provisions of the specifications pertinent to excavation claims. The form of contract required the contractor, inter alia, to confine the operations of his workmen to limits indicated by    directions of the Engineer (Art. 52). Article 33 was of similar import and provided (a)ny work improperly done without lines or levels or instructions shall be removed and replaced by the Contractor at his own expense. Article 11 of the Form of Contract gave the engineer control over the actual operations, and Article 7 thereof clearly indicated that the contractor was to accept orders from the engineer. This was also clearly expressed in Articles 1 and 29. In the latter article it was also provided that the engineer shall determine in all cases the amount, quality, acceptability and fitness of the several kinds of work and materials which are to be paid for. These examples of the contractual commitments of the parties demonstrate that in respect to the earth excavation claim Terminal was entitled to binding instructions to the jury to the effect that Bogert-Childs, Mr. Ivan L. Bogert and Mr. Robert A. Lincoln were agents of the authority, but that Bogert-Childs acted in the capacity of arbiter in the matter of the final recomputation of the earth excavation item. Therefore the trial court erred in leaving that issue to the jury on this claim, but the error favored the authority and was therefore not prejudicial to the substantial rights of the authority. Insofar as the alleged arbitrary (constructively fraudulent) determination as to cubic yards of material excavated is concerned, measurement was detailed in Sect. 1.16 of the Detailed Specifications. The testimony points to a dispute of fact as to the actual excavations, and if the facts as testified to relating to the monthly estimates of completed work controlled a jury question as to the arbitrary character thereof would be present. There was ample testimony from which a jury could find that Bogert-Childs, Mr. Ivan L. Bogert or Mr. Lincoln arbitrarily cut back the completed work estimates to conform to the pre-bid estimates of the authority's engineers. It is to be noted that a perpendicular excavation of the specific space would have required the expense of shoring, whereas the method pursued by Terminal was less onerous and provided fill for other uses. However, the Appellate Division determination in this respect did not rest on the cut-back factor, but upon the final decision of Bogert-Childs as to the total cubic yardage of excavation for which payment should be made. Terminal has made no effort to repudiate the findings of the Appellate Division, namely that near the completion of the work Mr. Lincoln asked his superiors for a recomputation of the excavation work, that a surveyor, Mr. Florio Job, who had performed the pre-bid surveying work on which the bid proposals for excavation were based, made a complete survey of the area, and that another Bogert-Childs engineer, using Terminal's preexcavation survey and Mr. Job's field notes recomputed the actual excavation amounts, bringing the allowance to 87,064 cubic yards (11,064 cubic yards more than the original pre-bid estimate of 76,000). No evidence is disclosed from which it could be inferred that this recomputation was arbitrary, and under the contract terms it was binding upon Terminal. Mere disagreement will not justify the submission of the issue of fraud, i.e., constructive fraud as hereinbefore set forth, to the jury. T. Foster Callahan, Inc., v. Comm'rs, etc., Union Twp., supra (102 N.J.L., at pages 706-707). For the reasons hereinbefore stated we are of the opinion that the Superior Court, Appellate Division, correctly determined that it was error for the trial court to deny the authority's motion to dismiss the earth excavation claim incorporated in the first count. At the stage of the case when the motion was made, it called for partial judgment at the trial for the defendant authority on this item. R.R. 4:55-2 (formerly Rule 3:54-2).