REVISED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 94-20783
_____________________
TRIAD ELECTRIC & CONTROLS, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
versus
POWER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants,
POWER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, INC.;
CENTURY CONTRACTORS WEST, INC.;
EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, INC.
Defendants/Counter-Claimants
Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
_________________________________________________________________
June 30, 1997
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:
The primary issues arising out of this Texas diversity action,
concerning a construction contract dispute tried to the district
court, are whether the court reversibly erred first, by allowing,
after close of the evidence, the addition of a fraud counterclaim,
and second, by then ruling in favor of that new claim, including
awarding punitive damages of $3 million, without allowing the
counterclaim defendant, Triad Electric & Controls, Inc., to defend,
post-addition, against the claim. Triad, the electrical
subcontractor on a construction project, appeals a take-nothing
judgment on its contract-based claims against both the project
owner’s engineer, Power Systems Engineering, Inc. (PSE), and the
general contractor, Century Contractors West, Inc.; the judgment
for Century on its counterclaim for overpayments; and the judgment
for Century and PSE on their counterclaim for fraud. Century
cross-appeals the denial of attorneys’ fees. We AFFIRM in part,
REVERSE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings.
I.
The following factual scenario is based primarily on the
voluminous and detailed findings of fact by the district court,
which, for the most part, Triad does not contest. In mid-1983, PSE
invited Century and other general contractors to submit bids for
the construction of a cogeneration facility (electricity and steam)
at a refinery near Houston, Texas. The PSE-provided bid package
consisted of engineering drawings, which included cable schedules
describing the electrical connections to be installed and setting
forth the approximate wire footage; the Specification for General
Construction, which established the quality and quantity standards
for the facility, specified types of material and construction
codes and practices, and incorporated by reference the PSE Standard
- 2 -
Specifications; and the Design Control Specification (DCS), a
narrative document describing generally the facility’s systems,
operating parameters, and major items of equipment.
At that time, the facility’s design was only partially
complete; portions of it were described in detail in the
engineering drawings and the Specification for General
Construction, but other portions were described only in a narrative
manner in the DCS. In fact, the facility was to be constructed as
a “fast track” project; construction was to begin before the design
drawings were complete, and PSE continued to work on the design
after issuing the bid package.
PSE requested two bid prices from each invited general
contractor: a “base” bid, based on the incomplete drawings included
in the bid package; and a “guaranteed maximum” bid, which was to
include all work necessary to complete the project in accordance
with the DCS. Pursuant to the base/guaranteed maximum concept, the
successful bidder would receive extra payment, above the base
price, for any changes in the work described in the incomplete
drawings, up to the amount of the guaranteed maximum; but,
generally, the cost above that maximum, due to further changes to
the drawings, would be at the successful bidder’s risk. The
successful bidder would, however, be entitled to receive payment
above the guaranteed maximum price for work performed pursuant to
changes to the DCS.
- 3 -
In September 1983, Century and other general contractors
bidding on the project invited Triad and other electrical
subcontractors to bid the electrical and instrumentation portions.
Century furnished Triad with the portion of the bid package
pertaining to that portion of the work, including the Specification
for General Construction with attachments, the electrical drawings,
the piping and instrumentation diagrams, and the DCS. Century
invited only prequalified subcontractors to bid on the project;
prequalification was based partially on each subcontractor’s
representation that it was experienced in bidding projects from
conceptual design documents. Triad made such a representation.
Addendum No. 1 to the Specification for General Construction,
which was included in the bid package furnished to Triad, requested
that the electrical and instrumentation contractors “provide (a) a
base bid ... and (b) a guaranteed maximum bid”. The base bid was
defined as the “Scope of Work shown in [the] General ...
Specification”, which incorporated the engineering drawings. On
the other hand, the “guaranteed maximum bid” was defined as the
“Scope of Work in [the] General ... Specification ... plus that
additional amount necessary to furnish a plant which will start-up
and operate as stated in the [DCS]”.
The base/guaranteed maximum concept was defined further in
PSE’s 22 September 1983 Clarifications to Addendum No. 1:
The [DCS] establishes the design basis for an
operable and reliable plant as defined by
[PSE]. The conceptual design, process design,
- 4 -
and detail engineering design will be
performed by [PSE]. There is no requirement
for detail design evaluation, system
evaluation, detail auditing of PSE engineering
calculations, etc. The contractor is to
provide (a) a base bid based on the bid
documents, and (b) a guaranteed maximum bid
based on the level of confidence the
contractor feels that the plant described in
the Bid Documents can start-up and operate as
defined in the DCS.
Contrary to the foregoing, however, Triad submitted an
unpriced “scope letter” to Century on 28 September 1983, stating
that the electrical scope of work was “based on the cable
schedules”, which were part of the drawings included in the bid
package. Triad verbally informed Century that it would perform the
scope of work described in that letter for approximately $2.9
million. But, Triad submitted bids of approximately $3.9 million
to three other general contractors, Century’s competitors.
In November 1983, Century advised Triad that its initial bid
was non-responsive because Triad was not allowed to limit its scope
of work to the cable schedules; instead, it had to include
everything shown, implied, or required by the DCS. Century gave
Triad the option to participate in a base/guaranteed maximum bid,
as in the Century/PSE contract, but Triad declined.
Triad submitted its final proposal to Century in December
1983. That proposal removed the qualification/limitation to the
cable schedules, and proposed a price of approximately $3.1
million.
- 5 -
Subsequent to the 15 November 1984 Century/PSE contract,
Century issued a letter of intent to Triad in February 1985, and
Triad began work on the project. After several months of
negotiations over the Triad subcontract drafted by Century, it was
signed in mid-June 1985.
Triad’s subcontract consists of a Purchase Order and a
Subcontract Agreement which required it to supply all labor and
materials required for the installation of complete and operational
electrical and instrumentation systems for the “GUARANTEED MAXIMUM
LUMP SUM PRICE” of $3.4 million. In defining the scope of work,
the Purchase Order referenced the following: (1) the contract
specifications, as modified; (2) the DCS; (3) listed drawings,
which included the cable schedules; (4) an equipment list; and (5)
a list of instruments to be installed, calibrated, and connected by
instrumentation wiring. Those listed drawings -- the contract
drawings -- were the same as those included in the bid package.
After construction began, PSE decided, in order to take
advantage of tax incentives, to shorten the contract schedule so
that it could complete the facility by the end of 1985
(approximately two months earlier than called for in Triad’s
subcontract). PSE, Century, and Triad anticipated that Triad could
experience additional costs as the result of labor inefficiency due
to the shortened schedule. PSE and Century agreed to compensate
Triad for any man-hours over the number it had originally estimated
- 6 -
to perform its contractual scope of work, the assumption being that
those extra hours would be the product of inefficiencies caused by
acceleration.
In that regard, Triad advised PSE and Century that, without
adjusting for extras or acceleration, it had estimated 83,000 man-
hours to perform its scope of work. Even though PSE and Century
each had independent estimates, the parties agreed to use Triad’s
estimate as the base.
In mid-July 1985, after several months of negotiations, and
approximately one month after the Century/Triad subcontract was
executed, PSE, Century, and Triad entered into an agreement
governing Triad’s compensation for the accelerated work (the
acceleration agreement). And, pursuant to acceleration agreement
¶ 1, PSE and Century advanced $372,338 to Triad in a series of
progress payments, with each payment the subject of a change order
to the Triad subcontract.
In contrast to its accepted 83,000 hours estimate, Triad used
approximately 119,000 to complete its portion of the work, and
sought additional compensation pursuant to acceleration agreement
¶ 3. PSE and Century refused to pay Triad any amount under ¶ 3,
maintaining that the earlier ¶ 1 payment was an advance toward the
total due under ¶ 3, which was to be adjusted at the end of the job
to account for Triad’s actual efficiency losses.
- 7 -
Shortly before completion of the project at the end of 1985,
Triad submitted to Century, and Century submitted to PSE, various
extra work order requests (EWOs) for payment above the contract
price, arising out of design changes that had increased Triad’s
scope of work (drawing EWOs). Triad’s first drawing EWO submittal
consisted primarily of stacks of invoices in no particular order;
PSE rejected it as unintelligible; and Triad resubmitted the EWOs
in a different format. In preparing its drawing EWOs, Triad
compared the work called for by the contract drawings (as noted,
those listed in the Purchase Order) with the work done pursuant to
the later “issued-for-construction” drawings.
Triad also submitted EWOs for extra work that it had been
directed to perform in the field (field EWOs). Triad’s EWOs
(drawing and field) requested approximately $2 million. (At trial,
Triad admitted that, even without the contested EWO payments, it
made a profit of approximately $350,000. It demanded nearly $3
million in this action.)
While Century and PSE were reviewing Triad’s EWOs, Triad
claimed that it was experiencing a negative cash flow; PSE agreed
to make interim payments to Century, to be passed on to Triad,
subject to adjustment upon completion of the EWO review process.
In early 1986, approximately $620,000 of the approximately $1.8
million requested by the drawing EWOs was advanced to Triad,
subject to further review and verification.
- 8 -
PSE, Century, and Triad agreed in April 1986 to designate one
field engineer from each entity to review and evaluate 11 of
Triad’s largest drawing EWOs. After doing so, the engineers
reached agreement on nine. They, however, did not have authority
to settle the EWO claims. PSE and Century did not agree with the
results of the engineers’ review, on the grounds that the analysis
was based on a misunderstanding of Triad’s contractual scope of
work.
Century advised Triad in August 1986 that Triad’s scope of
work was not limited by the contract drawings; and that the only
compensable changes were changes to the scope of work defined by
the DCS. Triad countered that its scope of work was limited to
what was shown on the contract drawings, plus items specified in
the DCS but not shown on those drawings. Simply put, the primary
dispute centered around increased cost to Triad for changes in the
design of the items specified in the DCS, as reflected in the
contract drawings, including changes both in the type conduit and
cable required and in the location of the specified items.
Triad filed this action in November 1986, ultimately resulting
in claims against Century and PSE for payment for extra work, for
sums due under the acceleration agreement, and for breach of
contract in connection with the acceleration. Century
counterclaimed for overpayment to Triad for extras and for design
- 9 -
changes that deleted work from Triad’s contractual scope of work;
PSE did not seek affirmative relief.
The case was trifurcated for trial. Phase I was to adjudicate
whether, through the engineers’ review, the parties had settled
approximately $1.1 million of Triad’s EWOs; Phase II, to be tried
to a special master, was to address the amount due Triad for
unsettled EWOs; and Phase III, to be tried to the district court,
was to decide Triad’s acceleration claim and any other unresolved
issues.
Phase I was conducted in early 1991. In mid-1992, the
district court entered very comprehensive findings and conclusions.
It rejected Triad’s claims that the nine largest drawing EWOs had
been settled by the engineers’ review, holding both that they did
not determine any contractual scope issues, and that PSE’s and
Century’s engineers lacked authority to settle any EWOs. (Triad
does not appeal that ruling.)
The district court held further that Triad’s subcontract was
unambiguous; that it required Triad to perform a “guaranteed
maximum” scope of work; and that Triad was entitled to be
compensated only for design changes that were outside the “scope of
the DCS or resulting from PSE’s ‘gold plating’”. The court found
that, after the dispute over Triad’s scope of work arose in 1986,
Triad had lost its original estimate file; and that, in light of
the lack of any satisfactory explanation for the file’s
disappearance, “production of Triad’s estimate would show that it
- 10 -
understood that it was required to supply a guaranteed maximum
scope of work”.
After entry of the Phase I rulings, and on motion of the
defendants and over Triad’s objection, the district court revoked
the “trifurcation” plan. Instead, the remaining issues would be
tried to the court (Phase II).
Phase II commenced in January 1993. At the conclusion of
Triad’s case-in-chief, and pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 52(c), the
court dismissed Triad’s claim for design change extras, reserving
decision on Triad’s claims for field extras and acceleration.
Moreover, during argument on the Rule 52(c) motion, Century
moved orally to amend its counterclaim to conform to the evidence,
stating that it would file a written motion for leave to add a
counterclaim for fraud, including $10 million in punitive damages,
“before the end of the week”; PSE announced that it would seek
sanctions. Triad objected to both.
This notwithstanding, the trial proceeded without any ruling
on Century’s oral “motion”. In fact, all parties rested the very
next day. PSE announced that it would join Century’s motion to add
the claim.
Three weeks after the close of the evidence, Century and PSE
filed the motion for leave to add a fraud claim, including seeking
punitive damages. They maintained that, during Phase II, they had
first learned that Triad’s claims for extras and for acceleration
inefficiencies were founded on material and intentional
- 11 -
misrepresentations, including the time originally estimated to
perform Triad’s contractual scope of work and the extent of Triad’s
knowledge of that scope. Century and PSE also submitted proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law, including that Triad had
committed fraud and was liable for punitive damages. Triad
objected; alternatively, it moved to reopen the record, for a
continuance, and for a jury trial because new fact issues had been
raised in the proposed claim.
Approximately a year and a half later, in September 1994, the
district court granted leave to add the fraud claim and denied
Triad’s motion for a continuance and jury trial. Accordingly, the
next day, the court entered judgment for Century for $593,215 for
overpayments, and for PSE and Century on the joint fraud claim for
$372,338 in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive
damages. All of Triad’s claims were disallowed.
The district court found that Triad had “rigged the bid
process” by intentionally underbidding the job by $1 million; that
“Triad never intended to perform the guaranteed maximum scope of
work required by its contract ... [but] secretly intended to recoup
its underbid amounts through the submission of false and fraudulent
extra work claims”; that Triad’s claims for extras were for work
that was part of Triad’s guaranteed maximum scope; that Triad had
intentionally misrepresented “the number of man-hours [83,000]
required to perform its contractual scope of work”; that, in
reliance on that misrepresentation, Century and PSE had advanced
- 12 -
$372,338 under acceleration agreement ¶ 1; that Triad had destroyed
the original of its 1983 estimate file to conceal its fraud; that,
because Triad underbid its work, it should not have made any
profit; that Triad’s EWO analysis was flawed because it assumed
“that PSE could not alter its preliminary and incomplete bid
drawings without having to pay additional compensation to Triad for
the change”; that Century had proved entitlement to a refund of
$593,215; and that the acceleration agreement was unenforceable
because it had been procured by Triad’s fraud.
Concerning the newly added fraud claim, the court rejected
Triad’s contention that it was prejudiced by lack of both notice
and an opportunity to defend against the claim, reasoning that
Triad could not claim surprise or prejudice because PSE and
Century’s case for fraud and concealment was made “from the mouths
of Triad’s own witnesses”. The court stated further that Triad was
on notice of “a claim of intentional wrongdoing” by virtue of the
statement in the pretrial order inserts of PSE and Century that
“Triad, at best, misconstrued and at worst misrepresented that the
drawings ... resulted in changes to Triad’s contractual scope of
work”. The court excused PSE and Century’s delay in presenting the
fraud claim on the basis that they “could not discover the fraud
until the trial of the case because Triad was actively attempting
to conceal it”. And, the court held that Triad was not entitled to
a jury trial on the fraud claim because it presented no new fact
- 13 -
issues, “only a new theory of recovery arising out of the same
circumstances and events”.
After Triad filed its notice of appeal, PSE and Century moved
for attorney’s fees and sanctions, and to fix prejudgment interest;
the motions were heard in January 1995. While they were under
advisement, Triad moved for Rule 60(b) relief on the grounds of
newly-discovered evidence (the missing original estimate file,
which Triad claimed to have located and offered to make available
to the court and opposing counsel); misrepresentations by PSE and
Century in their proposed findings; and procedural and fundamental
due process deficiencies. The court, inter alia, denied the Rule
60(b) motion without a hearing; and denied PSE and Century’s
requests for sanctions and attorney’s fees.
In denying Rule 60 relief, the court held that Triad’s newly
found estimate file was not “newly discovered” evidence within the
meaning of Rule 60(b)(2), but was merely “newly produced”; and that
the production of the file would not have changed the trial result.
The other grounds asserted by Triad (denial of due process, right
to a jury trial, misrepresentations by PSE and Century) were
rejected as an attempt to use Rule 60(b) as a substitute for
appeal. (Triad appealed the order denying Rule 60(b) relief, but
did not brief that issue specifically; accordingly, it is
abandoned.)
- 14 -
II.
Century’s cross-appeal for attorney’s fees will be addressed
after the issues presented by Triad. It contends that the take-
nothing judgment is based on erroneous interpretations of the
subcontract and of the acceleration agreement, and that the fraud
judgment cannot stand because of insufficient evidence and
procedural and constitutional violations. Of course, we review the
district court’s factual findings only for clear error and its
conclusions of law de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a); e.g., Johnson v.
Gambrinus Co./Spoetzl Brewery, 109 F.3d 1040, 1044 (5th Cir. 1997).
In our application of this clearly erroneous standard, Triad
urges that we “take into account the district court’s lack of
personal attention to factual findings” in light of its “almost
verbatim” adoption of the defendants’ proposed findings. Our court
recently commented on that practice in Marine Shale Processors,
Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 81 F.3d 1371, 1386 (5th Cir. 1996), cert.
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S. Ct. 682 (1997):
[W]e note that district courts occasionally
adopt wholesale the findings of fact and
conclusions of law written by a victorious
litigant. While we discourage this practice,
we have never radically altered the standard
of review in such cases, much less concluded
that such an adoption results in a per se due
process violation.... We tolerate the
occasional use of this device because of our
trust that district courts will closely
examine the proposed findings and will
carefully consider the objections and
arguments of the opposing party.
- 15 -
Indeed, the findings and conclusions are almost identical to
those proposed by the defendants. But, based on our review of the
record, we are confident that the district court closely examined
the proposals and likewise considered most carefully Triad’s
position. Moreover, in applying the clearly erroneous standard,
the findings are tested against the record. Finally, as noted, for
the most part Triad does not contest the findings. In sum, an
altered standard of review -- if that is what Triad is suggesting
-- is not in order.
A.
With respect to Triad’s EWO claims, the central issue is
whether its subcontract allows payment above the “guaranteed
maximum lump sum” price for work performed as a result of changes
to the design shown in the contract drawings, or whether, as the
district court held, additional payment is due only for work
resulting from either changes to the DCS or PSE’s “gold plating”.
The answer turns on the intended meaning of the contract phrase
“guaranteed maximum”.
Needless to say, whether a contract is ambiguous, as well as
the interpretation of an unambiguous contract, are questions of law
reviewed de novo. E.g., Clardy Mfg. Co. v. Marine Midland Business
Loans Inc., 88 F.3d 347, 352 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, ___
U.S. ___, 117 S. Ct. 740 (1997). The district court held that the
contract was unambiguous; that it required Triad to furnish the
- 16 -
same scope of work as Century owed to PSE; that the main document
which defined Triad’s guaranteed maximum scope of work was the DCS;
that Triad’s contractual scope includes everything necessary to
provide complete and operational systems for the facility within
the scope of the DCS; and that, as a result, Triad was entitled to
additional payment only for work added outside the scope of the DCS
or resulting from PSE’s “gold plating”.
Triad does not contend that the subcontract is ambiguous;
instead, that the court interpreted it erroneously. Triad asserts
that the conclusion that the DCS defined Triad’s scope, and that
everything else was subject to change without causing an increase
in Triad’s price, even if the contract design would have produced
a complete and operational plant, is inconsistent with the
subcontract’s definition of “guaranteed maximum” and contradicts
the plain language of the subcontract, which expressly tied Triad’s
scope of work to the underlying contract drawings, as well as to
the DCS.
Before turning to the contract documents, at least some light
needs to be shed on Triad’s suggestion that the original design
would have produced a complete and operational facility. Triad’s
reliance on its expert’s opinion that the quantities shown on the
contract cable schedules were adequate to construct a facility that
would start-up and operate is misplaced. For starters, although
the expert reviewed the bid package, including the DCS, he did not
- 17 -
review Triad’s contract. Moreover, Triad agreed that the job, as
bid, was only approximately 70% engineered.
In any event, Triad subcontract ¶ 1, entitled “Scope of Work”,
provides that Triad “shall perform ... the work ... [i]n accordance
with plans, specifications and addend[a] listed on page (1) of
[the] Purchase Order”. And, Purchase Order page one provides that
Triad is to
complete all Electrical/Instrumentation work
in complete accordance with the intent of the
contract specifications, as modified by
Addendum 1 dated September 14, 1983,
clarifications to Addendum 1 dated September
22, 1983, Addendum 2 dated October 10, 1983,
drawings as listed on Attachment 1, and the
Design Control Specification dated August 31,
1983 modified by Revision 1 dated October 10,
1983, and Revision 2A dated December 5, 1983.
(Emphasis added.) The Purchase Order then provides that “[a]ll of
the following items shall be furnished complete and provide
complete operational systems meeting all requirements of the
Contractor, Engineer and owner, but not limited to”, and lists a
number of items Triad is to provide, “ALL FOR THE GUARANTEED
MAXIMUM LUMP SUM PRICE OF $3,400,000".
The Specification for General Construction, referenced in the
Purchase Order, contains a detailed definition of Triad’s scope of
work:
1.0 SCOPE OF WORK
This specification covers the ... performance of
all work necessary for construction of a
Cogeneration Facility.... The work shall include
- 18 -
the items described in the contract drawings and
this specification. In the event of conflict
between the drawings and specification involving
quality or quantities, THE HIGHEST QUALITY AND THE
GREATEST QUANTITY SHALL BE FURNISHED. The contract
drawings and specification are complementary and
what is required by either shall be as if required
by both, unless specifically stated otherwise.
Information presented on the drawings is as
accurate as surveys and planning can determine;
however, field verification of all dimensions is
directed. In the event of conflict between the
drawings and specification involving errors,
omissions, or inconsistencies, the Contractor shall
notify [PSE] of such conflict for the purpose of
clarification or correction.
.1 Work Included
.1 Perform all work described to the
extent shown on the drawings listed
on the attached [PSE] Drawing Index
(Attachment 1) Vendor Drawing Index
(Attachment 2), and as described in
this specification.
Among the drawings listed on the PSE Drawing Index (Attachment 1)
attached to the Specification for General Construction were cable
schedules, specifying wires and cables by size, type, and
approximate length, associated hardware, and items to be connected.
Addendum 1, referenced in the Purchase Order, defined the
guaranteed maximum price to include the “Scope of Work in [the] ...
Specification for [General] Construction ... plus the additional
amount necessary to furnish a plant which will start-up and operate
as stated in the Design Control Specification”. (Emphasis added.)
And, as noted supra, the clarifications to that Addendum, also
referenced in the Purchase Order, provide:
- 19 -
The [DCS] establishes the design basis for an
operable and reliable plant as defined by
[PSE]. The conceptual design, process design,
and detail engineering design will be
performed by [PSE]. There is no requirement
for detail design evaluation, system
evaluation, detail auditing of PSE engineering
calculations, etc. The contractor is to
provide (a) a base bid based on the bid
documents, and (b) a guaranteed maximum bid
based on the level of confidence the
contractor feels that the plant described in
the Bid Documents can start-up and operate as
defined in the DCS.
Thus, according to the definitions of “guaranteed maximum” in
the addenda, to the extent that the DCS described items that the
drawings did not address, the “Guaranteed Maximum Price” would
include the work associated with such items. Pursuant to that
definition, Triad assumed the risk that it had included in its
guaranteed maximum price a sufficient contingency to cover the
labor and materials necessary to complete the work in accordance
with the manner in which PSE chose to fill in the gaps left by the
contract drawings and specifications.
In addition, the district court held that Triad also assumed
the risk that it had included in its price a sufficient contingency
to account not only for completion of the design, but also for
changes in the contract drawings, so long as the changes were
neither “gold plating” nor outside the scope of the DCS. Triad
contends that its subcontract does not cover the risk that PSE
would change completed designs shown in the contract drawings, and
that the district court’s conclusion to that effect was based on an
- 20 -
October 1983 agreement between PSE and Century, to which Triad was
not a party. That PSE/Century agreement, which defined and limited
the design modifications that would result in a change to Century’s
Guaranteed Maximum Price under its contract with PSE, provided:
Engineering changes are [guaranteed maximum]
changes only if they are outside of the scope
of the [DCS] or if they cause work out of the
normal sequence of work.... Engineering
errors are a change to the [guaranteed
maximum]. Changes to Owner furnished
equipment are changes to the [guaranteed
maximum].
Triad asserts that the absence of similar language in its
subcontract establishes conclusively that Triad was not required to
accept the risk that PSE might change the design shown in the
contract drawings.
Century acknowledges that language similar to the PSE/Century
definition of guaranteed maximum was not incorporated in the Triad
subcontract (or even in the PSE/Century contract); but, it asserts
that the concept embodied in that October 1983 PSE/Century
agreement was contained in Triad’s subcontract. Century concedes
further that the final design, as shown in the issued-for-
construction drawings, required Triad to install more cable than
detailed by the contract drawings. But, Century points out that
the contract cable schedules show all cable lengths as “APPROX.”
Further, it relies on Purchase Order ¶ 11, which requires Triad to
[f]urnish and install Electrical/Instrumenta-
tion items such as but not limited to: cable
tray, conduit and cable of certain items as
- 21 -
described in the [DCS] and or the addendums.
Cable for these items are [sic] over and above
the quantities specified in the Cable
Schedules.
(Emphasis added.)
According to Century, this ¶ 11 clearly expresses the parties’
intent that Triad could not limit its scope of work, in this
regard, to installing the quantity of cable specified in the
contract cable schedules, and establishes that Triad assumed the
risk that the contract cable schedules would be changed as PSE
completed the design. Century maintains that, because ¶ 11
specifically prohibited Triad from limiting its electrical scope of
work to the cable schedules, the only document to provide a
limitation on that scope was the DCS; accordingly, by definition,
only changes to the DCS could constitute a change to the guaranteed
maximum scope of work.
Triad responds that Century’s interpretation of ¶ 11 makes
other, more specific provisions of the contract meaningless or
nonsensical. Such other provisions include Purchase Order ¶ 1,
which defines Triad’s work as “all Electrical/Instrumentation work
in complete accordance with the contract specifications, ...
drawings as listed on Attachment 1, and the [DCS]”; ¶ 9, relating
to all lighting and power wiring, which states that “[c]onduit and
cable to be included to the extent shown on the conduit and cable
schedule”; and ¶ 16, which references the cable schedules as well
as the DCS and addenda. According to Triad, the only way to read
- 22 -
¶ 11 consistently with the rest of the subcontract is to construe
its use of the phrase “certain items” as referring to items in the
DCS for which no detail drawings existed. Triad asserts that ¶ 11
makes plain that Triad was required to “fill in the gaps” in the
design, because there were “certain items” in the DCS which were
not covered by the cable schedules. According to Triad, the phrase
“cable for these items” in ¶ 11 refers only to “certain items
described in the [DCS]”.
Triad’s interpretation of ¶ 11 is inconsistent with the
introductory clause on the first page of the Purchase Order, which
requires Triad to furnish “all” work “complete” for “complete
operational systems”. Moreover, because everything to be installed
in the plant is described in the DCS, the language of ¶ 11 applies
to all cable installed by Triad, and not just to those items
described in the DCS but not included in the cable schedules.
Finally, Triad contends that change order language in its
subcontract contradicts the district court’s conclusion that the
subcontract definition of guaranteed maximum scope of work is
consistent with the definition applied regularly in the
construction industry (contractor to supply everything required for
a complete and operational facility for a “guaranteed maximum”
price). Triad notes that subcontract ¶ 4 provides that Triad’s
price is “subject to alterations as herein provided for”; and that
¶ 5, entitled “Extra Work”, authorizes Century to “direct that
subcontractor perform extra work or furnish additional materials”,
- 23 -
and provides further that Triad’s price is to be equitably
adjusted.
Obviously, PSE and Century do not dispute that the contract
envisioned the possibility of extra compensation if Triad was
required to perform outside its contractual scope of work. Indeed,
Triad was given credit for EWOs which resulted from changes to the
DCS and from field extra work requests. But, this change order
language is not inconsistent with the district court’s
interpretation, and it does not answer the question whether a
particular change is a compensable change, i.e., a change to
Triad’s contractual scope of work.
In sum, the district court correctly interpreted Triad’s
“GUARANTEED MAXIMUM LUMP SUM PRICE” to include all work except that
performed as a result of either changes to the DCS or PSE’s “gold
plating”.
B.
As discussed, Triad was paid $372,338 pursuant to the July
1985 acceleration agreement ¶ 1. That paragraph states that “[PSE]
will pay Triad an additional $372,338 for acceleration of their
base electrical contract”. But, ¶ 3 of that agreement provides for
payments to Triad based upon the following formula:
A target incremental man-hour forecast of
25[%] over Triad’s base contract was agreed
for inefficiencies due to acceleration.
Triad’s base contract is 83,000 man-hours and
the corresponding target increment for
inefficiencies is 20,750 man-hours. [PSE] will
- 24 -
pay Triad for all man-hours over 83,000 and
under 103,750 (83,000 + 20,750) at the
contract rate of $22.43. The savings between
the payment for incremental man-hours over
83,000 expended and the increment of 20,750
will be split 50-50 with Triad. Above the
25[%] target [PSE] will pay subcontractor’s
cost only, no profit. It was agreed that this
hourly cost is $19.18 per man-hour. The
maximum additional amount [PSE] will pay over
the 25[%] target is $150,000. Change orders
will be incrementally added to both the base
and the target amount (25[%] of the base) for
determination of the final sharing. This
agreement on electrical work applies where the
change order man-hours do not exceed 25[%] of
the base man-hours. If the change orders
exceed 25[%], this will be renegotiated for
any impact caused by the additional changes.
In short, ¶ 1 speaks of payment for “acceleration” of Triad’s
work, while ¶ 3 speaks of payment to Triad for “inefficiencies due
to acceleration”. Triad sought payment under ¶ 3, but without
giving a credit for the $372,338 paid under ¶ 1. In short, Triad
contends that the ¶ 1 payment was a “sign-up bonus” for agreeing to
accelerate; PSE and Century counter that it was an “advance”.
For this question, the district court held that the
acceleration agreement was ambiguous; accordingly, it allowed parol
evidence. Based on testimony by PSE and Century officers, the
court found that the parties intended that the amount paid under ¶
1 was an advance, and that ¶ 3 contemplated a post-job
reconciliation of Triad’s actual efficiency losses, against which
the advance would be credited.
The district court found also that Triad failed to prove its
actual efficiency losses because it had lost its original estimate
- 25 -
file and because there was evidence that, in fact, Triad had not
suffered a loss of productivity due to acceleration. (The court
also refused to enforce the acceleration agreement because it
concluded that Triad committed fraud, as discussed infra.)
Triad contends that the district court erred by holding that
the acceleration agreement is ambiguous and, concomitantly, by
allowing parol evidence. Triad asserts that the acceleration
agreement called for unconditional, objectively quantifiable
payments without regard to actual losses in Triad’s productivity;
that ¶ 1 was clear and unambiguous; that nothing in either
paragraph tied the ¶ 1 payment to ¶ 3's formula; and that nothing
in ¶ 3 mandated a credit for the ¶ 1 payment.
“The initial determination that a contract is ambiguous, such
that its interpretation warrants the consideration of extrinsic
evidence, is ... a legal conclusion subject to de novo review.”
Clardy Mfg. Co., 88 F.3d at 352 (emphasis in original). “[W]hen a
contract is ambiguous and its construction turns on the
consideration of extrinsic evidence, we review the district court’s
interpretation for clear error only.” Id. “We look to state law
to provide the rules of contract interpretation.” Id.
“Under Texas law, a contract is ambiguous if, after applying
established rules of interpretation, the written instrument
‘remains reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning.’” Id.
(quoting R & P Enterprises v. LaGuarta, Gavrel & Kirk, 596 S.W.2d
- 26 -
517, 519 (Tex. 1980)). “In determining whether the language of the
contract is unambiguous, ... we ‘should examine and consider the
entire writing in an effort to harmonize and give effect to all the
provisions of the contract so that none will be rendered
meaningless.’” Id. (quoting Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393
(Tex. 1983)). But, “even when the contract is ambiguous, and parol
evidence is therefore admissible to explain the ambiguity, such
evidence is not competent to vary the terms of the contract or
contradict the legal effect of its unambiguous provisions.”
Caviness Packing Co. v. Corbett, 587 S.W.2d 543, 546 (Tex. Civ.
App. -- Amarillo 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.). As part of determining
whether ambiguity exists, the court must look at the contract as a
whole in light of the circumstances existing at the time of
execution. Reilly v. Rangers Mgmt., Inc., 727 S.W.2d 527, 529
(Tex. 1987).
The district court did not err by concluding that the
acceleration agreement is ambiguous. Paragraph 1 does not specify
whether the $372,338 was a “sign-up bonus” or an “advance” to be
credited later against the amount determined in accordance with ¶
3. And, Triad’s claim that ¶ 1 should be examined independently
from ¶ 3 is contrary to Texas law, which requires that the
agreement be read as a whole. It goes without saying that, because
the agreement is ambiguous, parol evidence was admissible. See R
& P Enterprises, 596 S.W.2d at 519.
- 27 -
Likewise, the district court did not clearly err by finding
that the parties intended the ¶ 1 payment to be an advance to
finance inefficiencies subject to being adjusted pursuant to ¶ 3 at
the conclusion of the project, when the number of inefficient man-
hours could be calculated. There was testimony that the agreement
was intended to compensate Triad for any inefficiencies in a way
that would be fair to all of the parties. If the advance were
treated as a “sign-up bonus”, Triad could possibly be paid twice
for most, if not all, of the same inefficiencies: under ¶ 1, and
later under ¶ 3. Furthermore, ¶ 6, which provided for a “bonus” if
Triad met certain project completion dates, indicates that the
parties knew how to use that term when intended. Finally, in light
of the evidence of the parties’ intent, the fact that the $372,338
was paid pursuant to change orders (which, in fact, reference the
acceleration agreement) to Triad’s subcontract does not mean, as
Triad contends, that Century treated the payment as a bonus.
Based on the foregoing, the district court correctly denied
Triad’s acceleration claims.
C.
Long after the close of the evidence, the district court
granted leave to add the fraud counterclaim. The next day, it held
that Triad had committed fraud: (1) by inducing Century to advance
over $600,000 by misrepresenting both that it had a negative cash
flow and that the EWOs represented actual compensable changed work;
and (2) by inducing Century and PSE to advance the $372,338 under
- 28 -
the acceleration agreement for anticipated inefficiencies, by
misrepresenting that the 83,000 man-hours base was sufficient to
perform Triad’s contractual scope of work, when in fact it was
adequate only for a “qualified” scope of work, based on the
contract cable schedules.
Triad challenges the fraud judgment, including the $3 million
punitive damages, on grounds that it did not have adequate notice
of the counterclaim or an opportunity to defend against it; that it
was denied its right to a jury trial; and that, in any event,
Century and PSE failed to prove fraud. On this incomplete record
on the fraud issue, we are not able to review the sufficiency of
the evidence. Instead, we conclude that, although the court
properly granted leave to amend, it reversibly erred by entering
judgment on that new claim without re-opening the case to allow
Triad to defend against it, including before a jury.
1.
At the close of Triad’s Phase II case-in-chief, Century
partially moved orally for leave to add a counterclaim for fraud
and punitive damages (it stated that the written motion would be
filed in a few days); Triad objected; and Century did not then
obtain a ruling on the “motion”. And, PSE and Century rested the
next day, without presenting any evidence of fraud.
In fact, Century and PSE did not file the motion to amend
until approximately three weeks after the conclusion of the Phase
II trial. In opposition, Triad asserted that, if the court were to
- 29 -
grant leave to amend, Triad would be entitled to a continuance, to
have some of the court’s prior findings stricken, and to have the
issues tried before a jury. Nearly one and one-half years later,
the district court granted leave to add the claim, one day before
entering judgment.
The motion to amend was premised on FED. R. CIV. P. 13(f) and
15(b). Rule 13(f) provides:
When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim
through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable
neglect, or when justice requires, the pleader
may by leave of court set up the counterclaim
by amendment.
(Emphasis added.) Rule 15(b) provides:
When issues not raised by the pleadings are
tried by express or implied consent of the
parties, they shall be treated in all respects
as if they had been raised in the pleadings.
Such amendment of the pleadings as may be
necessary to cause them to conform to the
evidence and to raise these issues may be made
upon motion of any party at any time, even
after judgment; but failure so to amend does
not affect the result of the trial of these
issues. If evidence is objected to at the
trial on the ground that it is not within the
issues made by the pleadings, the court may
allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do
so freely when the presentation of the merits
of the action will be subserved thereby and
the objecting party fails to satisfy the court
that the admission of such evidence would
prejudice the party in maintaining the party’s
action or defense upon the merits. The court
may grant a continuance to enable the
objecting party to meet such evidence.
- 30 -
(Emphasis added.) It goes without saying that the fraud claim was
not tried by express consent. Triad contends that it did not
receive adequate notice of the claim, and that it was not tried by
implied consent.
We review the leave to amend ruling for abuse of discretion.
E.g., Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir. 1994).
Concomitantly, it is most obvious that, “under Rules 15(a) and
13(f) the Court should not grant leave to amend (or to add a
counterclaim) where undue prejudice will result”. T. J. Stevenson
& Co., Inc. v. 81,193 Bags of Flour, 629 F.2d 338, 369-70 (5th Cir.
1980). For our purposes, “it is not often that amendments are
allowed after the close of evidence, since the opposing party may
be deprived of a fair opportunity to defend and to offer any
additional evidence”. Id. at 370 (emphasis added; internal
quotation marks, ellipses, brackets, and citations omitted).
Consistent with what the district court held, Century and PSE
assert that Triad cannot claim prejudice because Century and PSE’s
Phase II pretrial order inserts (filed less than two weeks before
that part of trial) put Triad on notice that they were presenting
a fraud claim, and because the evidence of fraud came “[f]rom the
mouths of Triad’s own witnesses”.
The district court’s conclusion that the pretrial order gave
Triad notice is based on two statements placed in that order by
Century and PSE: in the “Procedural History” portion, that “Triad,
- 31 -
at best, misconstrued, and at worst, misrepresented, that the
drawings issued by PSE after Triad was awarded the Subcontract
resulted in changes to Triad’s contractual scope of work”; and, in
the “Conclusion”, that “[t]he evidence at trial will show that
Triad’s claims for ... EWOs were greatly overstated due to Triad’s
misrepresentation (whether intentional or not) of its contractual
scope of work.”
In the light of the particularity required for pleading fraud,
FED. R. CIV. P. 9(b), and based on our review of this record, we
conclude that, despite the on-the-scene familiarity by the district
court with this question and, in the larger sense, this case, it
erred by finding that the pretrial order put Triad on notice of a
fraud claim. As noted, the statements that supposedly did so
appear only in the “Procedural History” and “Conclusion” portions;
those portions entitled “Contested Issues of Fact” and “Contested
Propositions of Law” contain no mention of fraud. Moreover, in the
pretrial order, PSE did not seek affirmative relief, and Century’s
refund claim is not couched as one for fraud:
Triad’s EWO submissions were flawed because
they were based upon an incorrect conception
of Triad’s contractual scope of work. Both
PSE and Century informed Triad on numerous
occasions that its EWO submissions were
flawed, but they accommodated Triad by making
the interim payments....
Likewise, Century’s claim for return of the $372,338 acceleration
payment was based on a theory of unjust enrichment, not fraud:
- 32 -
Since ... Triad did not properly comprehend or
bid the correct scope of work, the fundamental
premise on which the July 15th [acceleration]
Agreement was based is invalid. Having lost
the original estimate Triad can never meet its
burden of proof.... Under these circumstances,
Triad, as a matter of law, can recover nothing
under the July 15th [acceleration] Agreement
... and Triad must repay to Century the sum of
$372,338 originally advanced.... To hold
otherwise would permit Triad to profit from
its own mistakes and wrongful conduct.
Of course, charging willful and malicious conduct in breach of
contractual obligations, without more, does not constitute a fraud
claim. See Kingsley v. Baker/Beech-Nut Corp., 546 F.2d 1136, 1142
(5th Cir. 1977). In sum, these pretrial order statements do not
constitute notice that Century and PSE were making a fraud claim.
Along that line, it is most inconsistent, if not disingenuous, for
Century and PSE to contend now that these statements put Triad on
notice of a fraud claim; at trial, when Century “moved” orally for
leave to amend, it stated that it had not done so earlier because
it had not become aware of the fraud until near the end of the
Phase II trial, because Triad had concealed it. Simply put, it
would hardly be fair to hold that Triad should have recognized a
fraud claim from the pretrial order statements, but yet allow the
parties who made them to excuse their failure to seek leave to
amend prior to trial by claiming ignorance of the fraud. See
Jimenez v. Tuna Vessel Granada, 652 F. 2d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 1981)
(“each party is entitled to know what is being tried, or at least
to the means to find out. Notice remains a first-reader element of
- 33 -
procedural due process, and trial by ambush is no more favored here
than elsewhere.”).
Pursuant to Rule 15(b), if “issues not raised by the
pleadings” -- the equivalent of “notice” -- are tried instead by
“express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated
in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.” No
notice was given; nor was there express consent. Therefore, a
ruling on the new claim was allowable only if Triad had impliedly
consented to trial of the fraud claims. Toward that end, “trial of
unpled issues by implied consent is not lightly to be inferred
under Rule 15(b), [and] such inferences are to be viewed on a case-
by-case basis and in light of the notice demands of procedural due
process”. Jimenez, 652 F.2d at 422.
Whether an issue has been tried with the
implied consent of the parties depends upon
whether the parties recognized that the
unpleaded issue entered the case at trial,
whether the evidence that supports the
unpleaded issue was introduced at trial
without objection, and whether a finding of
trial by consent prejudiced the opposing
party’s opportunity to respond.... Whether
the parties recognized that the unpleaded
issue entered the case at trial often depends
on whether the evidence that supports the
unpleaded issue is also relevant to another
issue in the case. If the evidence that
supports the unpleaded issue is also relevant
to another issue in the case, the introduction
of this evidence may not be used to show
consent to trial of a new issue absent a clear
indication that the party who introduced the
evidence was attempting to raise a new issue.
- 34 -
United States v. Shanbaum, 10 F.3d 305, 312-13 (5th Cir. 1994)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The evidence of fraud, and its active concealment, that the
district court found came “from the mouths of Triad’s own
witnesses” was also relevant to the contractual issues being tried
in Phase II. Because there was no indication that Century and PSE
were presenting a fraud claim at the time that evidence was
introduced, it cannot be the basis for finding that Triad impliedly
consented to trial of a fraud claim.
Century and PSE respond that, because the “motion” to amend
was made at the close of Triad’s case and before they presented any
evidence, Triad received fair notice of the claim, and its conduct
thereafter amounted to a waiver of any right to complain. They
maintain that Triad responded to Century’s oral “motion” with a
“half-hearted” objection; note that Triad never obtained a ruling
on that objection, even when reminded at the conclusion of trial
that the motion to amend was pending; and note that, during the
balance of trial (one day), Triad did not, in its rebuttal case,
present evidence relating to the fraud claim, nor seek a
continuance to be allowed to do so, nor renew its objection or seek
to reopen the case when reminded at the conclusion of trial that
PSE and Century were pursuing a fraud claim.
As a point of embarkation, and as referenced earlier, it is
most debatable that, when Triad rested, Century even “moved” orally
- 35 -
for leave to amend. The comments by Century’s counsel, taken as a
whole, instead put the district court and Triad on notice that a
motion would be filed in the near future. This lack of certainty
as to what was being sought cannot be laid at Triad’s feet.
In any event, Century and PSE’s reliance on Dale Benz, Inc.,
Contractors v. American Casualty Co., 305 F.2d 641, 642 (9th Cir.
1962), in support of their assertion that Triad waived its right to
complain about the fraud judgment by failing to obtain a ruling on
its objection to Century’s oral motion for leave to amend, made
prior to the close of all the evidence, is misplaced; that case
dealt with a party’s failure to obtain a ruling on its objection to
the admissibility of evidence. In the absence of a ruling granting
leave to amend, which was the responsibility of Century and PSE to
obtain, Triad’s failure to obtain a ruling on its objection to the
proposed amendment cannot constitute a waiver of its objection to
trial of a fraud claim that was merely proposed, but had not been
allowed. And, because Century and PSE did not obtain a ruling on
the “motion”, it would have been most premature for Triad to seek
a continuance in order to introduce evidence on the fraud issue.
As Triad correctly notes, acceptance of the position advanced
by PSE and Century would create a classic “Catch-22" for a party
faced with an opponent’s oral, ungranted, mid-trial (arguably,
late-trial) motion for leave to add a claim. Failure to defend the
proposed claim during the remainder of trial would risk an order,
- 36 -
after both sides had rested, granting leave to file the claim and
a finding that the non-movant had waived any objection by failing
to defend. On the other hand, introducing evidence in opposition
to the proposed claim would risk a finding, after the close of
evidence, that leave to file should be granted pursuant to Rule
15(b) because the claim had been tried with the non-movant’s
implied, if not express, consent.
Triad was also prejudiced by the district court’s exclusion
during Phase II of evidence which, had Triad and the court been on
notice that a fraud claim was being tried, would have been relevant
to the elements required to prove fraud, such as whether Triad
intended to defraud, whether PSE and Century relied on Triad’s
representations, and whether either suffered damages. For example,
Triad sought to introduce evidence that it reduced its final price
after Century instructed it to exclude work shown in post-1983
design documents and assured it that the post-1983 design changes
would be handled as extras; evidence relating to Century’s in-house
estimate for the electrical and instrumentation portion of the
project, which was lower than Triad’s estimate of 83,000 man-hours;
evidence of the parties’ subjective intent and knowledge of Triad’s
scope; and evidence that Century was paid by PSE for Triad’s extra
work, as guaranteed maximum changes, while Century was claiming a
refund from Triad for the same work. And “last but certainly not
least”, Triad was deprived of the opportunity to defend against the
- 37 -
punitive damages demand. See Northeast Women’s Center, Inc. v.
McMonagle, 868 F.2d 1342, 1356 (3d Cir.) (punitive damages award
set aside where plaintiff failed to mention punitive damages in
pretrial order and then objected to evidence of defendant’s motive,
thereby preventing defendant from defending the claim), cert.
denied, 493 U.S. 901 (1989).
In sum, and based on our review of this record, we conclude
that, pursuant to Rule 13(f) (“when justice requires”), allowing
the addition of the fraud claim was not an abuse of discretion.
See Spartan Grain & Mill Co. v. Ayers, 517 F.2d 214, 220 (5th Cir.
1975) (courts have interpreted provisions of Rule 13(f) liberally,
in line with Rules’ goal of resolving disputes on the merits in a
single judicial proceeding); Budd Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 820
F.2d 787, 791 (6th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted) (“Rule 13(f) permitting amendments `when justice
requires’ is especially flexible and enables the court to exercise
its discretion and permit amendment whenever it seems desirable to
do so.”). Concomitantly, we conclude that the district court
erred, after granting leave to amend, by ruling on the claim
without reopening the case to allow Triad to defend against it.
Accordingly, we must remand this case for further proceedings on
the fraud claim.
For remand purposes, and contrary to Century and PSE’s
assertions, the district court did not hold that Triad was required
- 38 -
to return the $372,338 acceleration agreement ¶ 1 advance on a
ground independent of its fraud finding. PSE’s only affirmative
claim for relief is the fraud claim. Likewise, in its initial
counterclaim, Century sought to recover only alleged overpayments
on Triad’s EWOs; it did not demand payment under the acceleration
agreement. In the joint pretrial order filed by Century and PSE
prior to the Phase II trial, they asserted that Triad “must repay
to Century” the acceleration agreement ¶ 1 payment to Triad of
$372,338, because Triad had lost its original estimate and,
therefore, could not prove the number of additional man-hours
caused by inefficiencies, as opposed to the number of man-hours
resulting from Triad’s underestimating the number of man-hours
necessary to perform its contractual scope of work. But, they
neither sought nor obtained a ruling from the district court on
that claim. Instead, they sought and received the award based
solely on their subsequent joint fraud claim.
2.
Also at issue is whether Triad was erroneously denied a jury
trial of the fraud claim. Although remand is mandated by our
holding that Triad was deprived of the right to defend against the
properly allowed fraud claim, we address this issue to assist the
district court on remand, in that the reasons advanced previously
for not allowing a jury trial might be reurged, erroneously, on
remand.
- 39 -
A party may demand a jury trial of any issue triable of right
by a jury by serving upon the other parties a written demand “not
later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading directed
to such issue.” FED. R. CIV. P. 38(b). The district court held
that Triad was not entitled to a jury because the counterclaim did
not raise new issues of fact, but only a new theory of recovery
arising out of the same “circumstances and events” as Triad’s
claims for extras, for which it had not demanded a jury.
Concerning PSE, the new claim raised new issues of fact and
law (such as fraud and PSE’s damages) for which Triad had a right
to a jury; PSE had never before asserted any claim. Likewise, in
regard to Century, the claim raised new issues; for example,
whether punitive damages should be assessed against Triad. Triad
was entitled to demand a jury trial. See Daniel Int’l Corp. v.
Fischbach & Moore, Inc., 916 F.2d 1061, 1064 (5th Cir. 1990).
Maintaining that “the issue of Triad’s fraud had been in the
case at least since the pretrial order”, Century and PSE apparently
contend that the Rule 38(d) 10-day period for a jury demand began
to run from the date of that order. But, as stated, that order
(even assuming that such an order is the Rule 38(d) operative
“pleading”) did not give notice of a fraud claim. Moreover, as
also stated, if Century and PSE were aware of the facts giving rise
to a fraud claim at the time of that order, there was no excuse for
their waiting until much later in Phase II to move to amend.
- 40 -
Century and PSE assert also that Triad waived a jury by
failing to request one after Century “moved” for leave to amend at
the conclusion of Triad’s Phase II case-in-chief. But, as also
discussed, even assuming arguendo that Century did so move at that
time, because Century and PSE did not then obtain a ruling on the
motion, it would have been premature for Triad to have then
requested a jury.
When all is said and done, this fraud claim is a classic
example of one requiring full notice and opportunity for defense,
to include a jury if desired. As noted, fraud commands its own
rule of pleading, requiring more pleading detail than normally
required. FED. R. CIV. P. 9(b) (“In all averments of fraud ..., the
circumstances constituting fraud ... shall be stated with
particularity.”) And, surely, a fraud claim presents credibility
and other fact-based questions that are most appropriate subjects
for a jury. On the other hand, we are most mindful of the
considerable time and attention already given this claim by the
district court. But, on this record, Triad is entitled to now
defend fully against this new claim, including, if desired, before
a jury.
D.
PSE does not appeal the denial of attorney’s fees; Century
does. It requested them pursuant to, inter alia, TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
- 41 -
REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001, et seq. Here, § 38.001 is the only basis
presented.
“The requisites to recover for attorney’s fees under [that]
statute ... are: 1) recovery of a valid claim in a suit on an oral
or written contract; 2) representation by an attorney; 3)
presentment of the claim to the opposing party or a representative
of the opposing party; and 4) failure of the opposing party to
tender payment of the just amount owed before the expiration of
thirty days from the day of presentment.” Sikes v. Zuloaga, 830
S.W.2d 752, 753 & n.1 (Tex. App. -- Austin 1992, no writ). The
party seeking attorney’s fees must both “plead and prove that
presentment of a contract claim was made to the opposing party and
that the party failed to tender performance.” Ellis v. Waldrop,
656 S.W.2d 902, 905 (Tex. 1983).
Among other reasons for denying the § 38.001-request, the
district court stated that, although Century “arguably” could
recover, it had failed, contrary to that section, to properly
allege in its pleadings both that a “demand” had been made on
Triad, and that Triad, in turn, had failed to tender performance.
We review the denial of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion.
E.g., Richter, S.A. v. Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n, 939
F.2d 1176, 1195 (5th Cir. 1991).
Century asserts that the allegation in its counterclaim that
it told Triad that Triad had been overpaid, and Triad’s admission
- 42 -
in its reply to the counterclaim that Century made such a
statement, is adequate to plead a demand. Century maintains that
it was not necessary to plead Triad’s failure to tender performance
because it is implicit from its counterclaim that Triad refused to
tender the amount Century claimed owed. We disagree. As the
district court held, Century’s counterclaim did not give Triad the
requisite notice that attorney’s fees were being sought pursuant to
§ 38.001.
III.
On remand, the trial of the fraud claim will, no doubt, be
hotly contested and otherwise quite interesting, to say the least.
One example of the potent ingredients comprising the mix for this
issue is Triad’s original bid estimate file, already the subject of
extensive discussion, consideration, and district court rulings.
Concerning that file, some might say, to borrow a phrase, that it
“once was lost but now [is] found”; but, whatever may unfold, we
are most confident that, on remand, our very able district court
colleague will dispatch this, as well as the other issues,
carefully and expeditiously.
In sum, the denial of attorney’s fees is AFFIRMED; those parts
of the judgment disallowing Triad’s claims and awarding $593,215 to
Century are AFFIRMED; those parts concerning the joint fraud
counterclaim, awarding $372,338 in actual damages and $3 million in
- 43 -
punitive damages, are REVERSED; and the case is REMANDED for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED in PART and REVERSED and REMANDED in PART
- 44 -
Triad Electric & Controls, Inc. v. Power Systems Engineering, Inc.
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Date filed: 1997-08-01
Citations: 117 F.3d 180
Copy Citations