Opinion ID: 2498928
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: breach of agreement claims

Text: [¶ 12] Review of the rock removal and as-built survey claims requires consideration of the Agreement according to our rules of interpreting easements. Easements are reviewed under the same principles that have been established for interpretation of contracts. Lozier v. Blattland Investments, LLC, [2004 WY 132, ¶ 9,] 100 P.3d 380, 383-384 (Wyo. 2004); Klutznick v. Thulin, 814 P.2d 1267, 1270 (Wyo. 1991). The primary goal is to determine the intention of the parties from a close reading of the document language and by interpreting the terms of the document according to their plain and ordinary meaning. Comet Energy Services, LLC v. Powder River Oil & Gas Ventures, LLC, [2008 WY 69, ¶ 6,] 185 P.3d 1259, 1261-1262 (Wyo.2008). Determination of the parties' intentions requires common sense and good faith; it also requires consideration of the context within which the contract was made. Double Eagle Petroleum & Min. Corp. v. Questar Exploration & Production Co., [2003 WY 139, ¶ 8,] 78 P.3d 679, 681-682 (Wyo.2003). If necessary, the reviewing court may also look to the circumstances surrounding the contract, as well as its subject matter and the purpose of the contract to glean the intent of the agreement. Id. Any examination of the context within which the contract was drawn is limited to ascertaining the intent of the parties in making the agreement. Id. The context cannot be invoked to contradict the clear meaning of the language used, and those extraneous circumstances do not justify a court in proceeding to insert therein a provision other than or different from that which the language used clearly indicates, and thereby, in effect, make a contract for the parties. Lozier v. Blattland Investments, LLC, 100 P.3d 380, 383-384 (Wyo.2004). Davison v. Wyo. Game & Fish Comm'n, 2010 WY 121, ¶ 9, 238 P.3d 556, 560 (Wyo. 2010). [¶ 13] In interpreting contracts, we have also said that the language of the parties expressed in their contract must be given effect in accordance with the meaning which the language would convey to reasonable persons at the time and place of its use. Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Caballo Coal Co., 2011 WY 24, ¶ 15, 246 P.3d 867, 872 (Wyo.2011) (quoting Moncrief v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co., 861 P.2d 516, 524 (Wyo.1993)). The contract as a whole should be considered, taking into consideration the relationship between the various parts. Moncrief, 861 P.2d at 524. Courts may consider the circumstances surrounding execution of the agreement to determine the parties' intention, even in reviewing unambiguous contracts. Ultra Res., Inc. v. Hartman, 2010 WY 36, ¶ 22, 226 P.3d 889, 905 (Wyo.2010); Mullinnix LLC v. HKB Royalty Trust, 2006 WY 14, ¶ 6, 126 P.3d 909, 915 (Wyo.2006); Caballo Coal Co. v. Fidelity Expl. & Prod. Co., 2004 WY 6, ¶ 11, 84 P.3d 311, 314-15 (Wyo.2004). [¶ 14] As with a contract, if the language of an easement is ambiguous, we may use extrinsic evidence in an effort to determine the intentions of the parties. Davison, ¶ 9, 238 P.3d at 560. A contract is ambiguous if it can be read in more than one way. Dwan v. Indian Springs Ranch Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 2008 WY 74, ¶ 9, 186 P.3d 1199, 1202 (Wyo.2008). The determination of whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court to decide. Davison, ¶ 9, 238 P.3d at 560; State ex rel. Arnold v. Ommen, 201 P.3d 1127, 1137 (Wyo. 2009).

[¶ 15] Paragraph 8(m) is the only provision in the Agreement governing rock removal. It provides: When rock conditions are encountered in the construction of the pipeline rock shall be removed from said premises. The word rock as used in herein shall not include sand, gravel or rocks less than two inches (2) in diameter and boulders may be retained on the right-of-way per Grantor's direction. The parties agree that the provision is unambiguous but disagree as to its meaning. Berthel contends that the provision requires Rockies Express to remove all rock greater than two inches in diameter, from both the surface and subsurface. In other words, Rockies Express may not bury the rock it digs up and must instead remove it from the property altogether. Rockies Express, on the other hand, contends that the provision requires the removal of rock greater than two inches in diameter from the surface only, and asserts it may otherwise rebury the rock it digs up. [¶ 16] The district court agreed with the parties that the rock removal provision was unambiguous, and it interpreted it to require removal of rock only from the surface of the easement. We likewise find the provision unambiguous, and based on the plain meaning of its terms we interpret it to require removal of surface rock only. [1] [¶ 17] Paragraph 8(m) does not use the terms surface or subsurface and instead requires that rock encountered in construction of the pipeline be removed from the premises. The question then is whether the term premises means surface, subsurface, or both. The dictionary definition of premises is a tract of land with buildings thereon, or a building or part of a building usu. with its appurtenances (as grounds). Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 980 (11th ed.2007). The legal definition of the term is similar: A house or building, along with its grounds (smoking is not allowed on these premises). Black's Law Dictionary 1300 (9th ed.2009). [¶ 18] The plain meaning of the term premises relates to the land's surface, an interpretation that is confirmed by the remainder of Paragraph 8(m). The provision's second and final sentence defines the term rock and allows boulders to be retained on the right-of-way per Grantor's direction. (Emphasis added.) The overall tenor of the provision is a concern with the easement surface. [¶ 19] The only subsurface concern that Berthel has alluded to is the subsurface rock's impact on revegetation, its contention being that premises means surface and subsurface and was intended to address concerns with revegetation. As noted above, our primary and most important objective in interpreting the Agreement is to ascertain the parties' intent. In doing so, we consider the plain language and its relationship to other provisions in the Agreement. Using this approach, we must reject Berthel's proffered interpretation. The parties were indeed concerned with vegetative disturbance, and those concerns are addressed in the Agreement's Paragraph 8(d): Grantee shall affect a minimum of vegetative or soil disturbance, consistent with practical operations, and will smooth and maintain all disturbed areas to conform as nearly as practical with the adjacent terrain, and provide and maintain adequate water drainage to minimize erosion; after the initial construction of the pipeline covered by this Agreement is completed, or upon completion of any subsequent maintenance or replacement of the facilities causing vegetative or soil disturbance, all disturbed areas shall be restored and reseeded by Grantee. Also such restoration and reseeding shall be completed by Grantee using FERC specifications then in effect[.] [¶ 20] Not only does the Agreement's rock removal provision, Paragraph 8(m), not mention subsurface concerns or concerns with revegetation or soil disturbance, the parties expressly addressed those issues in a separate provision. If Berthel's concern is with the presence of construction-produced rock on the land's surface, its recourse is through Paragraph 8(m). If its concern is alternatively with restoration of the soil or vegetation, its recourse is through Paragraph 8(d). In other words, it is unlikely the parties intended to address revegetation concerns in Paragraph 8(m), given that those concerns were separately addressed in Paragraph 8(d). [¶ 21] That Paragraph 8(m) was intended to require removal only of surface rock is an interpretation confirmed by the facts and circumstances surrounding the Agreement's negotiation. As discussed, even when a contract's language is unambiguous, this Court may consider the facts and circumstances surrounding the making of the contract to determine the parties' intent and the plain meaning of the terms used. Davison, ¶ 9, 238 P.3d at 560; see also Ecosystem Resources, L.C. v. Broadbent Land & Resources, L.L.C., 2007 WY 87, ¶¶ 34-36, 158 P.3d 685, 693-694 (Wyo.2007) (facts and circumstances evidence may include case law, nature of parties, type of land covered by deed, purpose of conveyances and/or reservations, railroad's use of timber in business activities, and consideration paid); Mullinnix, ¶¶ 13-20, 126 P.3d at 916-19 (facts and circumstances evidence included nature of parties (ranchers with limited formal education), use of terms such as oil rights in casual versus formal contexts, and nature of petroleum industry at time of execution (gas considered unwanted byproduct of oil production)); Boley v. Greenough, 2001 WY 47, ¶¶ 13-23, 22 P.3d 854, 858-60 (Wyo.2001) (facts and circumstances evidence included evidence demonstrating meaning of term had evolved, nature of grantors' mineral interests, history of oil and gas development on property, and fact that parents assigned interests as gifts to their children immediately after discovery of oil and gas on their land). Our goal is to effectuate the parties' intent by giving their contract terms the meaning which the language would convey to reasonable persons at the time and place of its use. Union Pacific, ¶ 15, 246 P.3d at 872. [¶ 22] Bernie Lowery, one of the owner-partners in Berthel, provided the following deposition testimony concerning negotiation of the rock removal provision, which testimony Berthel submitted to the district court in support of its summary judgment motion: Q. Do you remember any particular provisions of the contract that you spent more time on than others? A. No. I can't really recall trying to measure time, but I do know the covenant pertaining to removal of the rock, which is becoming an important issue, or has become an important issue, was certainly an important issue at the time of the negotiations because it was so important to me that they did not leave our place, after they got done with their work, looking like a previous pipeline had left the place before we bought the ranch. And I told them thatI asked them, rather, what are you goingWhat are your plans when you encounter rock on our ranch? And they had never visited the ranch. And they had no idea what I was talking about. And I tried to explain to them what a mess was going to be left after they had to blast the rock out of there. And they had not come across that type of terrain before, and had not personally visited our ranch, and I told them that I thought we were entitled to more money than anyone else along the line because they were going to leave our place a mess. And they disagreed and wanted to go and inspect what I was talking about. And so we made a special trip with Needham, I believe is his name, and Skelton, and they observed what I was referring to on a previous project. Q. And I've seen some of the photos, and they show big piles of rocks left and things like that. A. Exactly. So they explained that they would never leave a job looking like that, and they could understand why I was upset. And I said, well, see, you need to know this, because now you understand why I want more money. And they said, well, we can't give you any more money, our hands are tied there, but maybe we can come up with some special wording in our agreement that you can live with.     Q. Now, when you were negotiating the rock provision, why was it important to you that the rocks be removed? You've saidLet me back up. You said that you didn't want it to look like the other pipelines that came through there. What were your reasons for not wanting rocks left on the property? A. Well, first off let me say, removing the rock was not my suggestion, and it was not my demand, not that I had much room to demand anything. I wanted more money because I felt they would leave the place in a mess.     Q. Does theSo it sounds like what you're telling me is that rocks don't impact necessarily how you use the land, things like that, what you were really looking for is more compensation and it was a tradeoff? A. Well, they do impact the land, that's why I didn't want them there. Q. In your opinion how does it impact the land? A. First off it's unsightly. Second off, you can't grow anything on it. You can't drive across it. But most of all it's unsightly. Q. So aesthetic reasons was your main concern? A. Well, that equates to financial reasons, so my concern is always the bottom line. And when something becomes unsightly, whether it's your house or a piece of property or your girlfriend, they Q. It's worth less? A. They affect the bottom line, yeah.     Q.    I'm talking just about the Rockies Express, if you believe that the land is worth less because of the way the easement was left, the reclamation? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And why do you think that? A. It's unsightly. Q. Okay. Does it detract fromIn what way does it detract from what was already there? A. Makes it more unsightly. [¶ 23] In addition to Mr. Lowery's testimony, representatives of Rockies Express provided deposition testimony, also submitted in support of Berthel's summary judgment motion, that it is standard construction practice to use rock unearthed in ditch construction as fill in burying a pipeline. The circumstances surrounding the rock removal negotiations illustrate that the parties' focus was on the appearance of rock on the surface. Rock piled on the surface was the problem Berthel brought to the attention of Rockies Express, and based on that circumstance, coupled with the standard construction practice of backfilling with rock, there is no reason to suspect that the parties would have contemplated the removal of subsurface rock. That is, reasonable persons under these facts and circumstances would intend that the provision requires the removal of rock from the right-of-way surface, not the right-of-way subsurface. [¶ 24] We thus agree with the district court that Paragraph 8(m) requires removal of surface rock only. Using this interpretation, we next consider whether the district court's determination that Berthel had not proven damages for the rock removal breach was clearly erroneous.
[¶ 25] In an action for breach of contract, the damages awarded are designed to put the plaintiff in the same position as if the contract had been performed. Capshaw v. Schieck, 2002 WY 54, ¶ 10, 44 P.3d 47, 52 (Wyo.2002). The plaintiff carries the burden of producing sufficient evidence to prove its damages with a reasonable degree of certainty. Knight v. TCB Constr. & Design, LLC, 2011 WY 27, ¶ 17, 248 P.3d 178, 184 (Wyo.2011). Damages must be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, and a court may not resort to speculation or conjecture in determining the proper amount to award. Schlinger v. McGhee, 2012 WY 7, ¶ 12, 268 P.3d 264, 268 (Wyo.2012) (quoting Capshaw, ¶ 10, 44 P.3d at 52). [¶ 26] The district court awarded Berthel no damages for the breach of the rock removal provision. In so ruling, the court explained: The reason the plaintiff's damage claim as to ¶ 8(m) fails as to the burden of proof is, simply, that the only evidence presented to this Court as to what it would cost to remove the rocks relates to a computation based on Mr. Lowery's guess or desire for what should be done and does not relate to contract damages. The only evidence presented relates to subsurface rock. The evidence is not broken out in parts, nor are there any references made in the materials, either the formal estimate or the working notes or scope of work, upon which this Court could rely to find that some fraction or portion of the estimate presented by the plaintiff actually related to surface rock. Being unable then to reasonably extricate from the evidence the cost of removal of surface rock, and because the removal of subsurface rock is not a portion of damages in this case, the Court cannot and will not order damages for the breach. (Emphasis in original.) [¶ 27] We agree. At trial, Berthel sought in excess of five million dollars in damages. This amount represented what it would cost to have the entire easement excavated to a depth of two feet, the topsoil replaced, and the ground reseeded. Berthel presented no evidence of what it would cost to remove surface rock only, nor any evidence that an operation of this magnitude was required to remove surface rock only. And on appeal, Berthel does not contend otherwise. Instead, Berthel reasserts its right to have both surface and subsurface rock removed and its entitlement to damages measured by the cost of removing both. Because Berthel did not present evidence of what it would cost to remove surface rock only, and the district court would have to speculate as to what that cost might be, we conclude the district court's ruling on rock removal damages was not clearly erroneous. [2]
[¶ 28] The district court granted Berthel's motion for summary judgment on the question of whether Rockies Express violated Paragraph 8(q), again with no findings of fact, contract interpretation, or rationale for its ruling. Following the trial on damages, the district court, again with a different presiding judge, awarded damages to Berthel. The court calculated the damages necessary to compensate Berthel for the cost of obtaining an as-built survey showing the contours of the land disturbed by the pipeline construction and showing the depth of the pipeline. The court placed a particular emphasis on obtaining the pipeline depth information. [¶ 29] On appeal, Rockies Express challenges the summary judgment ruling on liability, contending that it did not breach the as-built survey requirement. Berthel challenges the district court's damages award, contending it improperly reduced Berthel's damages from $75,284.65 to $42,820.00. Our initial task is to interpret the requirements of Paragraph 8(q), a question of law, and we then turn to whether issues of fact precluded the district court from granting Berthel summary judgment on Rockies Express' alleged breach of the provision. We will then consider the question of damages.
[¶ 30] Paragraph 8(q) of the Agreement required Rockies Express to provide Berthel with an as-built survey of the pipeline, as follows: Grantee shall provide Grantor with an as-built survey of the pipeline as it pertains to the lands described on Exhibit A. In the event said as-built survey determines that the total distance of the pipeline as measured along the ground surface is greater than the distance depicted in Exhibit A, Grantee shall compensate Grantor for each additional foot at the same price per foot paid as calculated in this Easement. If the distance is less, no adjustment shall be made. Berthel contends that the purpose of Paragraph 8(q) was two-fold: 1) to calculate the precise linear feet of ground disturbed by the pipeline, so Berthel was compensated for the full length of the pipeline; and 2) to address safety concerns. Rockies Express contends that the requirement served one purpose only and that was to establish the total distance of the pipeline, as built, to ensure Berthel was compensated for the full length of the pipeline. [¶ 31] Neither party provided, in support of their cross motions for summary judgment, expert evidence on the definition of an as-built survey, that is, evidence of the term's usage in the construction industry or more particularly in these types of easement agreements. Nonetheless, we find the Agreement to be unambiguous. Paragraph 8(q) requires that Rockies Express provide Berthel an as-built survey, and it specifies that the survey must show the total distance of the pipeline as measured along the ground surface. The provision then requires that Berthel be paid additional compensation per foot if the distance covered by the pipeline, as measured along the ground, is greater than calculated distance for which Berthel was originally compensated. [¶ 32] Paragraph 8(q) does not mention the depth of the pipeline, impose any requirement that depth data be provided, or cite safety purposes to be served by the as-built survey. This omission is consistent with the Agreement as a whole. There was no need for Rockies Express to provide depth information in the as-built survey because the Agreement, in Paragraph 8(a), separately requires that the pipeline be installed to a depth sufficient to provide for a minimum of thirty-six inches (36) of cover. Additionally, the Agreement bars any activity by Berthel on the easement that could present a safety concern, without first providing notice to Rockies Express. Specifically, Paragraph 3 of the Agreement provides in part: Grantor shall not build, construct, or permit to be built or constructed, any structure or obstruction, or impound water or any substance, or change the grade on or over the [E]asement, except that with prior notice to Grantee, Grantor shall be permitted to construct fences, roads, above-ground water lines and distribution systems, power transmission lines, communication lines and wind generation facilities across the Easement. [¶ 33] The Agreement's unambiguous language required Rockies Express to provide an as-built survey showing the distance of the pipeline as measured along the ground surface. It did not require that Rockies Express provide depth data, and any safety concerns related to such data are addressed by other provisions in the Agreement. [¶ 34] The question we must next answer then is whether the record supports the district court's summary judgment ruling on the as-built violation; that is, whether the undisputed evidence showed that Rockies Express failed to provide Berthel with an as-built survey showing the required measurement along the ground surface.
[¶ 35] Based on this Court's interpretation of Paragraph 8(q), the question before the district court on summary judgment was whether the as-built survey that Rockies Express gave Berthel provided Berthel with the required measurement along the ground surface, that is, contour measurements. On this question, Berthel submitted to the district court the affidavit of its engineering expert, James Murphy, and the deposition testimony of Mark Miller, the professional land surveyor who performed all surveying work for Rockies Express on the Berthel ranch. The evidence from both of these witnesses indicated agreement that the as-built survey did not provide sufficient data to make the measurements and calculations required by Paragraph 8(q). [¶ 36] In his affidavit, James Murphy stated: I have personally reviewed the EXHIBIT A BERTHEL LAND AND LIVESTOCK, LTD 42 PIPELINE AS-BUILT PROFILE dated 06/22/07 (EXHIBIT 4). That profile cannot serve as or be utilized as, an accurate contour as-built survey of the pipeline, because of the lack of detail and/or small scale presented. The actual contour footage of the pipeline cannot be calculated based upon the reviewed document. The reviewed document does not specifically or accurately identify the depth of ground cover existing along the pipeline on the Plaintiff's ranch property. In order to accurately calculate the contour footage of the pipeline as constructed on the Plaintiff's ranch property, a much larger scale, greater detail, of the pipeline, as it has been located in the ditch, would be required, such as would be provided upon as-built alignment sheets. [¶ 37] Mark Miller testified: Q.    You can't calculate exactly that 114.2 linear contour rods of the pipeline from Exhibit A, can you? A. No. Q. Could you calculate that from the as-built onlyor as-built alignment sheet? A. I believe so. I believe they record 3D distances. Q. Could you calculate it better from the elevation spreadsheet? A. Yes. Q. What would be the best document in existence that you could calculate that A. The spreadsheet would be. Q. That contour elevation rod linear footage? A. Well, I say the spreadsheet would be, but you also have to combine that. The property line information is not in the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet only cares about the pipeline and so it has to beit's either going to have to be the alignment sheets or from a product that's specifically designed to do that. I would have to have a specific request for a profile with a specific level of detail so thatbasically so I knew what was being asked for. I'd have to have a specific request through the customer that this is what we want, please produce it. [¶ 38] In response, Rockies Express submitted to the district court a copy of the survey provided to Berthel, also known as Exhibit A, and a copy of a letter from Rockies Express advising Berthel that based on as-built calculations, Berthel was entitled to an additional payment of $403.41. [¶ 39] The evidence Rockies Express submitted on the question of the as-built liability was insufficient to raise an issue of fact. It simply did not confront, and left unopposed, the evidence of both James Murphy and Mark Miller that the required calculations could not be made from Exhibit A. We thus conclude that the record supports the district court's ruling that the undisputed evidence showed that Rockies Express failed to provide Berthel with an as-built survey showing the required measurement along the ground surface.
[¶ 40] As stated above, damages are designed to put the plaintiff in the same position as if the contract had been performed. See Capshaw, ¶ 10, 44 P.3d at 52. With respect to the as-built survey violation, this means that the damages must be such as will compensate Berthel for Rockies Express' failure to provide an as-built survey showing the contour measurements required by Paragraph 8(q). [¶ 41] In support of its damages claim, Berthel submitted a quote from its engineering expert, James Murphy, detailing the tasks required to complete an as-built survey, and the costs associated with each of those tasks. The total cost calculated by Murphy was $75,284.65, and this was the amount of damages demanded by Berthel. [¶ 42] The district court accepted the Murphy quote, but modified it in some respects. The district court found Murphy's proposal to survey the depth of the pipeline by digging 245 holes down to the pipeline using heavy equipment to be a dangerous and unreasonable means to determine the pipeline depth. It thus subtracted from the Murphy quote all costs associated with that task and added in the costs of an alternative, safer method of determining the pipeline depth. Based on these adjustments, the district court awarded damages for the as-built survey breach in the amount of $42,820.00. [¶ 43] We find the district court's award clearly erroneous. Our concern with the award, and with the quote on which it was based, is the emphasis of each on providing an as-built survey that details the precise depth of the pipeline along the easement. Based on our interpretation above, Paragraph 8(q) did not require Rockies Express to provide Berthel with an as-built survey detailing the depth of the pipeline, and costs to provide that level of detail are therefore not a proper element of damages. [¶ 44] Unlike the damages for rock removal, the damages for the as-built survey violation are itemized, allowing us to make a damages calculation that accurately fits our interpretation of Paragraph 8(q). The Murphy quote is broken down into tasks relating to data gathering and preparation of the final drawings. The data gathering tasks are in turn broken down further into those relating to the contour measurements (required under our interpretation) and the depth measurements (not required under our interpretation). We are thus able to extract the costs of the required tasks and recalculate the damages to which Berthel is entitled. [¶ 45] Task I of the Murphy quote gathers the data necessary to determine the ground distance, that is, the required contours for calculating the full distance covered by the pipeline. The total cost of this task is $7,200.00. The final task of the Murphy quote is the preparation of a final as-built plan and profile map. The cost associated with this task is $4,535.00. The remaining tasks under the quote relate to excavations to determine depth, which we have deemed unnecessary. Totaling the task costs of $7,200.00 and $4,535.00 would thus conclude our calculation, but for the trial testimony of James Murphy. [¶ 46] During the trial on damages, Mr. Murphy, on cross-examination, testified that when he provided his affidavit on the adequacy of the as-built survey given to Berthel, and when he calculated his quote to prepare an as-built survey, Berthel had only provided him with one page of the eight-page survey submitted by Rockies Express. He did not have the first seven pages of the survey data. He further testified that the data provided in the first seven pages of the survey was sufficient to allow the preparation of an as-built survey detailing the contour footage, without the costs associated with Task I in his quote: Q.    In your affidavit you said in order to calculate the contour footage of the pipeline as constructed you would need as-built alignment sheets, and those are the measurements that are provided in the first seven pages of Exhibit R? A. I would agree with that. Q. So that $7,200 on the second two pages on the as-built drawings, that $7,200 is exactlywhat that is for is to establish the distance along the ground? A. Partially. Q. The contour footage? A. Partially as it is discussed in Task 1, that is correct. What you need to realize is Task 1 carries over to Task 2 because we locate the test pit locations under Task 1. If we didn't have to determine the horizontal or the ground distance we would still have to go out and stake the test pits every hundred feet and at the ground breaks. It may not take quite the level of accuracy that Task 1 required, so I could certainly say that some of that costs would stillunder Task 1 would still be required. How much of it may or may not be, I'd have to put a pencil to it. Q. Sobut had you had thatall of Exhibit R at the time you prepared this you would have been able to see exactly what the contour footage was? A. Correct. That certainly would have affected the costs of Task 1. I'm not going to deny that. [¶ 47] Mr. Murphy's only apparent reservation with regard to subtracting the Task I costs from the quote was his need for the Task I ground data to facilitate Task II, the gathering of depth data. Because, again, the gathering of depth data is not a proper element of damages, and the original as-built survey contained all the data Mr. Murphy required to complete the as-built survey showing the contour measurements, we must subtract the costs of Task I, $7,200.00, from the damages calculation. [¶ 48] We conclude that an award of $4,535.00, Mr. Murphy's cost to prepare the final as-built plan and profile map, will place Berthel in the position it would have been had Rockies Express complied with the requirements of Paragraph 8(q).