Court Opinion

ID: 9862878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 02:22:26.573486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:36:58.151413
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
McGEE, Justice.
In its motion for rehearing the Bank has correctly pointed out that its inspecting ar*485chitect had no authority to approve change orders. The Bank reasserts its contention that it was not a party to the change orders or the oral agreements, and that work performed by Fretz pursuant thereto could not reasonably have been foreseeable to it. We note our error, but find no basis on which to alter our holding. The construction contract, of which the Bank was aware, specifically provided for change orders. There was no evidence, however, that the Bank would ever require prior approval of any work done of this type. Rather, the Bank’s primary concern under the loan agreement was that the work be done properly before it would authorize a draw request to Aqua-Con, who would then pay Fretz for the work done. In fact, the Bank’s inspecting architect was hired to review the change orders and to advise the Bank as to their effect on the cost of construction. Thus, any change orders or other additional costs were foreseeable to the Bank so long as the final cost of such work did not exceed a previously expected sum. While such sum under the Bank/Aqua-Con loan agreement was $3,050,000.00 for the entire project, the Bank’s promise to set aside $2,372,715.00 for payment to Fretz is some evidence that the Bank could have reasonably foreseen construction costs up to that amount. The amount awarded by the jury, when added to the amount paid by the Bank (through Aqua-Con) to Fretz, does not exceed that amount.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.