Opinion ID: 2675239
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Impracticability

Text: Central States next argues that compliance with the claim provisions should be excused because compliance would be impracticable or futile. It argues that Agra’s delay in approving change orders left it in a quandary as to whether to continue work and save the project or suspend work while Agra considered the requests. Although the bankruptcy court did not specifically address the question of impracticability, it found that Agra “assisted and encouraged Central in submitting delay claims” and that there was “no evidence before the Court that Agra directed Central to proceed without an approved change order or agreed, verbally or in writing, to pay Central for the out-of-sequence work.” In re Central States Mech., Inc., 2011 WL 1637991, at . Iowa does not recognize the doctrine of impracticability. Associated Grocers of Iowa Coop., Inc. v. West, 297 N.W.2d 103, 107–08 (Iowa 1980). 4 But 4 Central States points us to a Kansas Supreme Court case, Sunflower Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Tomlinson Oil Co., Inc., 638 P.2d 963, 969 (Kan. 1981), which addressed the excuse of impracticability. Under Kansas law, an event is excused due to impracticability only if the following criteria are met: (1) the event cannot (continued...) -12- even if we were to excuse compliance with the claim provisions on this basis, Central States still cannot show impracticability. True, Central States did not cause the delay in approving change orders. But Agra’s delays in approving change orders were not unforeseeable, because the parties specifically included dispute resolution procedures to address such delays. Most importantly, the contract explicitly indicated that Central States was under no obligation to perform out-of-scope work unless approved by change order and that any work performed without a change order, or claims for extra costs that did not comply with the delay notice and claims provisions, would not be reimbursed. Nor was compliance with the claim provisions futile. As we stated above, the bankruptcy court found that Agra actually “assisted and encouraged Central States in submitting delay claims by sharing Agra’s delay claim form with Central States.” In re Central States Mech., Inc., 2011 WL 1637991, at . And over the course of the Superior project, Central States submitted 71 requests for change orders, 37 of which were approved for additional payment or extension of time. There is no evidence that Agra acted in bad faith in denying change orders. Rather, delays generally accumulated because Agra had to seek the owner’s 4 (...continued) be caused by the promisor; (2) the promisor must have had no reason to know of the impracticability; and (3) the language or circumstances indicate that the promisor not be relieved because of the impracticability. See Sunflower Elec. Co-op., Inc., 638 P.2d at 969. Central States acknowledges, however, that Iowa has not adopted this excuse. -13- approval on the change orders to increase payments to Central States. Absent any bad faith, compliance with the provisions was not futile. Cf., e.g., Lovrien v. Fitzgerald, 66 N.W.2d 458, 461 (Iowa 1954); Thompson v. Hirt, 191 N.W. 365, 367–98 (Iowa 1923).