Opinion ID: 2750988
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contract Terms

Text: The contract’s terms are clear and unambiguous. InsulVail contracted to perform a specific and limited job. The contract is short and simple; it provides InsulVail would install insulation in the “Restroom Lid” as follows: R-19 fiberglass loosefill to drop ceiling 2” rigid foam board insulation to box around can lights App. at 52. The contract also states “[a]ll work will be completed in a workmanlike fashion in accordance with the standards of the industry.” Id. at 51. But this “work” encompasses only the insulation installation in the “Restroom Lid.” The contract says nothing about the wet sprinkler system or preexisting insulation. InsulVail did what it contracted to do—it blocked cold air flow from the attic into the bathroom space below. It installed the insulation consistently with the insulation in other attic spaces at Charter. Mid-Century has not shown the insulation was installed -7- incorrectly according to industry standards or that industry standards require installers to report or replace preexisting insulation that had fallen.7 7 In the appendix, Mid-Century included selected pages from and references to the depositions of its expert, Kenneth Murphy, and InsulVail’s expert, Dennis Marshall, but this testimony does not even begin to elucidate industry standards. The passage from Mr. Murphy’s deposition does not address treatment of preexisting installation at all, and he did not know the industry standard for insulation installation in relation to water sprinkler pipes: Q. Reasonable to assume that there was going to be an annual inspection by somebody qualified to inspect wet systems? A. Well, I would think so but I’m not sure of the requirements by the fire inspection company. Q. What’s the standard in the industry for what insulation people can or cannot do with respect to wet systems? A. I don’t know. App. at 36. The selected passages from Mr. Marshall’s deposition fail to include questions specifically about industry standards. Mid-Century counsel did ask him to comment on Mr. Wall’s deposition testimony that he “looks for plumbing” in preparing “an estimate for new construction” so as not to isolate plumbing from heat, but does not do so for an existing structure. Id. at 136. In response, Mr. Marshall said, “The only thing I can ascertain is existing construction is working, new construction is yet to work.” Id. This attempt to understand what Mr. Wall said does not state Mr. Marshall’s opinion on an industry standard or even suggest such a standard exists. Counsel also asked whether an “insulation installer” should “make sure that plumbing is not isolated from warmth that would keep water in the pipe from freezing.” Id. at 137. Mr. Marshall said, “You could say, yes, depending on where it was,” that Mr. Wall should have looked for this “if it was readily noticeable,” and that pipes were visible to him (Mr. Marshall) when he looked in the attic. Id. Although this testimony seems to opine on what should have been done, it is phrased in highly speculative terms—“could,” “depending,” “if.” It does not specify whether by “readily noticeable” he meant it was readily noticeable that pipes actually contained water. Most importantly, it again does not even purport to identify industry standards. Perhaps equally important, the questions asked did not account for the narrow terms of the Charter-InsulVail contract that called for a limited insulation patch above the bathroom of Unit 5345. Finally, Mr. Marshall testified it would have been “kind” had Mr. Cornejo reported the fallen preexisting insulation, but “there wasn’t anybody else there,” and -8- Because the contract’s terms are clear, we need not consider extrinsic evidence— most notably, the Bid Request—to discern the parties’ intent.8 The Bid Request is an internal document produced by InsulVail to instruct its employees about the job at Charter. Mid-Century has presented no evidence the Bid Request formed a part of the contract. In fact, the Bid Request was not even provided to Charter. In any case, the Bid Request does not demonstrate InsulVail intended to do anything with the preexisting insulation. It instructs the installer to “Fix Vapor” and “Fix Knee Wall,” id. at 152, but those instructions pertain to any vapor barrier9 or knee wall insulation the installer might have had to pull down to install the new insulation. The Bid Request instructions do not suggest the installer must fix any preexisting vapor barrier or knee wall insulation that may have fallen.10 “maybe there wasn’t anybody there that he could tell.” Id. at 134. Again, this testimony hardly speaks to an industry standard. Mid-Century provides no other appendix materials on industry standards. We conclude a reasonable jury could not find from the appellate record that InsulVail’s installation of the insulation or its handling of the fallen insulation fell short of performing the contract in “workmanlike fashion” according to industry standards. See Lewis v. Tripp, 604 F.3d 1221, 1225 (10th Cir. 2010) (stating the reasonable jury standard). 8 Mid-Century discusses the “Work Order” in its briefing. The Work Order is actually the Bid Request. 9 A vapor barrier prevents cold air from passing through a space. 10 Mr. Wall’s deposition makes this clear: Q. What did it mean, “Fix vapor”? A. Vapor barrier, because I imagine the guys having to pull the top layer of it down to blow in there. . . . Q. After they finished their work— -9-