Opinion ID: 2514236
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Portions of the award of compensatory damages require further findings.

Text: MAPCO also argues that certain aspects of the compensatory damages award were clearly erroneous. We agree that some portions of the award are problematic and that further findings are required. MAPCO alleges three errors. MAPCO claims that (a) the costs included double billing for equipment leasing; (b) the labor costs submitted by Faulk for repairs were inflated; and (c) the costs included repair of areas of the Faulk property not affected by the MAPCO snow melt.
MAPCO asserts that Faulk double billed for his own labor time in his computation of damages. Faulk allegedly did this by billing the same time in the following manner. While Faulk was operating equipment at the warehouse, Faulk billed his own time at an hourly rate. At the same time, Faulk billed the equipment use at a wet rate that included a charge for the operatorwhile Faulk himself was the operator. This is double billing, MAPCO claims, because the operator's time is not separately billedit is part of the enhanced wet rate for the equipment. Faulk denies double billing and claims that there is no evidence that he actually separately billed for any time that he spent operating equipment. It is difficult to tell from the record which party is correct here. Faulk did indicate at the trial that the wet rate for equipment was sometimes used when he himself was the operator. [39] And Faulk indicated that he billed his own time as a supervisor for some work at $39.60 an hour. [40] However, it is not clear from the record whether these two charges actually overlapped. The alleged double billing, if true, would warrant a reduction in the compensatory damages award. Therefore, a remand is required to clarify whether any double billing occurred.
MAPCO claims that Faulk's labor costs were inflated because they included a markup and did not represent the actual cost to Faulk. Faulk used his own business's laborers to do the repair work. Instead of claiming as damages the actual amounts that he paid them, he claimed the normal rates billed to his clients for work done by these laborers and his company. MAPCO claims that Faulk is only entitled to the money that he actually paid the laborers. Without citing any authority, Faulk claims that he should be able to use normal market rates as a basis for calculating his repair costs. Faulk is generally correct. When a party is damaged and repairs the damage itself using its own workforce and equipment, that party is entitled to normal market rates for the use of the labor and equipment, as if the party had contracted the job out to some third party. [41] If Faulk's regular workforce and equipment were tied up undertaking the repairs, then Faulk incurred an opportunity cost, since he could have been using these resources elsewhere to generate revenue for his business. [42] Compensating him at normal market rates for the time spent on the repairs would fully compensate Faulk for this opportunity cost. Because the record indicates that Faulk used his own workforce to make the repairs, we cannot say that the award of compensatory damages for the full labor costs claimed by Faulk was clearly erroneous. [43]
MAPCO's last assertion of error concerning compensatory damages is that Faulk's submitted damages included costs for paving and gravel to repair areas that were not affected by the MAPCO snow melt. We find no error here. MAPCO claims that extra paving was done to the west and north of the area affected by the snow melt, and that Faulk included the cost for this additional work in his submission of damages. The record does not indicate that extra paving was done. The extent of the paving is clearly marked in the record. It is true that the paving does radiate some distance from the loading area. However, it is also true that the extent of the damage to the loading area was substantial and it is unclear from the record just how far out this damage radiated from the loading area itself. Faulk testified at trial that the entire amount of the paving expenses was fair and reasonable. We cannot say that the superior court's award of compensatory damages for paving this entire area was clearly erroneous. MAPCO also claims that Faulk listed as damages the cost of gravel hauled in for other buildings Faulk ownedspecifically, the Sandlewood building next door to 8401 Brayton Drive. MAPCO points to Faulk's testimony that he wrote on the gravel invoices the name of the Sandlewood building, instead of the building at 8401 Brayton Drive. However, Faulk testified that he filled the invoices out this way to prevent Odom Corporation, his tenant, from being billed for the gravel, so that the bills would instead go to Faulk's business. Faulk explicitly testified that the gravel was only used for the loading area at 8401 Brayton Drive, and not for any other Faulk building. [44] Again, we cannot say that the superior court's award of compensatory damages for all of the gravel used was clearly erroneous.