No. 12868
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
1975
T. G . HAGGER'i'Y and F. P. MESSMER e t a l . ,
P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents,
-vs -
SELSCO, a Utah c o r p o r a t i o n e t a l . ,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant :
Landoe and Gary, Bozeman, Montana
J . R o b e r t P l a n a l p a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana
F o r Respondents:
Berg, Angel, A n d r i o l o and Morgan, Rozeman, Montana
Ben E. Berg a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana
Submitted: March 4 , 1975
Decided :
APR 2 9 1975
/.$pk2 3
Filed :
~~LW",Q/ %"@p lerk
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.
This i s an a p p e a l from a judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s T.G.
Haggerty and F.F. Messmer, c o - p a r t n e r s , doing b u s i n e s s a s
Haggerty-Messmer Co., a p a r t n e r s h i p , i n an a c t i o n f o r f o r e c l o s u r e
of a mechanic's l i e n a g a i n s t a t r a i l e r c o u r t owned by defendant
S e l s c o , a Utah c o r p o r a t i o n q u a l i f i e d t o do b u s i n e s s i n Montana.
Action was brought t o r e c o v e r t h e b a l a n c e due under a c o n t r a c t
t o e r e c t c e r t a i n b u i l d i n g s and i n s t a l l t r a i l e r c o u r t f a c i l i t i e s .
Defendant f i l e d a cross-complaint. T r i a l was h e l d i n G a l l a t i n
County, Hon. W. W. Lessley presi.ding without a j u r y . Judgment
f o r p l a i n t i f f s was i n t h e amount of $70,680.55, p l u s i n t e r e s t a t
6 percent o r $6,738.85, and a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e amount of $7,500.
P l a i n t i f f s e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t w i t h defendant f o r t h e
c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e West Yellowstone United Campground. The con-
t r a c t was signed on May 28, 1971,and by June 2 , 1971, p l a i n t i f f s
had moved onto t h e s i t e and begun c o n s t r u c t i o n work. Time was of
t h e e s s e n c e because defendant d e s i r e d t o open t h e campground i n
August 1971. P l a i n t i f f s were t o c o n s t r u c t a road system, water
system, a u x i l i a r y r e s t rooms, and f i n i s h c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e
main a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b u i l d i n g ; a l l work was t o be completed i n
s i x t y - o n e c a l e n d a r days.
P l a i n t i f f s had two g e n e r a l s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s on t h e job s i t e
during construction. One was i n charge of t h e b u i l d i n g s , t h e o t h e r
i n charge of t h e sewer lagoon, s i t e grading throughout t h e a r e a ,
and a l l roads. The e n g i n e e r i n g f i r m of Morrison-Maierle designed
t h e p r o j e c t and was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r o v e r s e e i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n . This
f i r m , from i t s o f f i c e i n Bozeman, had primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of
checking t h e p r o j e c t and i t s r e s i d e n t e n g i n e e r , Olmstead, was i n
charge of t h e g e n e r a l overseeing job.
The f i r s t probtlem t h a t a r o s e was t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e main
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b u i l d i n g which defendant had c o n t r a c t e d t o a n o t h e r
company, Diamond Homes. While p l a i n t i f f s were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r
b u i l d i n g t h e t o i l e t and shower b u i l d i n g s , t h e y were only r e s p o n s i b l e
f o r t h e foundation o f t h e main a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b u i l d i n g . Diamond
Homes was t o e r e c t i t and then p l a i n t i f f s were t o f i n i s h o f f some
i n t e r i o r work. The pre-fab Diamond Homes b u i l d i n g d i d n o t a r r i v e
on t h e s i t e u n t i l J u l y 2, 1971. There was no r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f
Diamond Homes t h e r e t o unload i t , t h e r e f o r e p l a i n t i f f s unloaded t h e
building. C e r t a i n m a t e r i a l s were u n s a t i s f a c t o r y and a n o t h e r e i g h t e e n
days went by b e f o r e replacements a r r i v e d . I n t h e meantime Diamond
Homes made a d e a l , known t o defendant, w i t h p l a i n t i f f s t o e r e c t t h e
11
A 1 1 frame b u i l d i n g and t h i s work began on J u l y 20, 1971. It i s
e s t i m a t e d by Bergan, p l a i n t i f f s ' c o n s t r u c t i o n s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , t h a t
t h i s work took from t h r e e weeks t o a month. Plaintiffs billed
Diamond Homes $3,382.90 f o r t h e work. Defendant, knowing of t h e
d e a l made by Diamond Homes w i t h p l a i n t i f f s , p a i d Diamond Homes f o r
t h e work b u t Diamond Homes f a i l e d t o pay p l a i n t i f f s .
Defendant paid p l a i n t i f f s a l l amounts owed, l e s s r e t a i n a g e ,
through August 20, 1971, b u t has r e f u s e d t o make any f u r t h e r pay-
ments because of a l l e g e d d e f e c t s i n t h e performance of t h e con-
t r a c t and counterclaims i t i s e n t i t l e d t o l i q u i d a t e d damages i n an
amount of $200 per day f o r a d e l a y of 57 days.
The c o n t r a c t provided t h a t t h e s u p e r v i s i n g e n g i n e e r s , Morrison-
Maierle, would d e c i d e a l l q u e s t i o n s which a r o s e concerning a c c e p t -
a b i l i t y of m a t e r i a l s f u r n i s h e d , work performed, r a t e of p r o g r e s s of
work, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f drawings and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , and a l l q u e s t i o n s
a s t o a c c e p t a b l e f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e c o n t r a c t on t h e c o n t r a c t o r ' s
part. Two major items i n t h e c o n t r a c t appear t o have caused t h e
d i s p u t e s which a r o s e between p l a i n t i f f s and defendant--the e i g h t e e n
shower s t a l l s and t h e road system.
The s p e c i f i c a t i o n s c a l l e d f o r t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of commercial
grade t o p q u a l i t y c o n s t r u c t i o n showers, r e f e r r e d t o a s Sanymetal
Shower-master u n i t s o r t h e i r e q u i v a l e n t . The shower s t a l l s i n -
s t a l l e d were n o t of a commercial grade t o p q u a l i t y and t h i s was
brought t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f p l a i n t i f f s b e f o r e t h e i r i n s t a l l a t i o n .
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f a c t t h e showers were n o t t h e kind s p e c i f i e d
i n t h e c o n t r a c t , t h e shower bases began c r a c k i n g because t h e shower
room c o n c r e t e f l o o r was improperly l a i d i n t h a t i t d i d n o t s l o p e
t o the drains. Due t o t h e time f a c t o r o f g e t t i n g t h e camp open, t h e
p a r t i e s agreed p l a i n t i f f s would attempt t o f i x t h e &owers so t h e y
would be e q u a l o r e q u i v a l e n t t o what t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s c a l l e d
for. The problem of what i t would t a k e t o make t h e u n i t s e q u a l
o r b e t t e r i s one of t h e d i s p u t e d i s s u e s .
Ronald Olmstead, orriso on-Maierle's s u p e r v i s i n g e n g i n e e r
charged by t h e c o n t r a c t t o "* * * determine a l l q u e s t i o n s a s t o
a c c e p t a b l e f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e c o n t r a c t on t h e p a r t of t h e con-
t r a c t o r " t e s t i f i e d : (1) t h a t i t would t a k e $300 per shower t o
b r i n g t h e i n s t a l l e d showers up t o a c c e p t a b l e q u a l i t y ; (2) t o
r e p l a c e t h e e x i s t i n g showers w i t h t h o s e s p e c i f i e d i t would c o s t
$10,800; and ( 3 ) i t would t a k e $1,500 t o f i x t h e s l o p e of t h e
f l o o r s o i t would d r a i n .
A Bozeman master plumber Walter Savage, t e s t i f i e d over p l a i n -
t i f f s ' objections t h a t t o r e p a i r and r e p l a c e t h e shower s t a l l s
a t 1972 c o s t s i t would c o s t $11,646 and a t 1974 c o s t s $14,886.
P l a i n t i f f Tom Haggerty t e s t i f i e d t h a t t o g r o u t under a l l t h e
showers and t o f i b e r g l a s s t h e e i g h t e e n showers would c o s t from
$400 t o $800.
The t r i a l c o u r t l a t e r modified i t s o r i g i n a l f i n d i n g s on t h e
c o s t t o r e p a i r and r e p l a c e t h e shower s t a l l s from $14,886 to
$5,400. Defendant f e e l s t h i s f i g u r e inadequate.
The second item i n d i s p u t e r e l a t e s t o t h e road system and
t h e award of $1,500 t o r e p l a c e and r e p a i r t h e e n t r a n c e and e x i t
r o a d s t o t h e campground.
Engineer Ronald Olmstead t e s t i f i e d p l a i n t i f f s ' u t i l i t y
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t Elmer Shay primed and s u r f a c e d t h e roads on August
19, 1971, a f t e r he was t o l d by Olmstead t h a t "* ** t h e road bed
w a s n ' t q u i t e ready f o r s u r f a c i n g y e t . " A f t e r t h i s warning was
i g n o r e d , , Morrison-Idaierle absolved i t s e l f of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and
informed p l a i n t i f f s they might have t o come back and r e p a i r t h e
roads. The e n t r a n c e and e x i t roads a r e each about 1,200 f e e t i n
l e n g t h and connect t h e compground w i t h t h e main highway.
Olmstead f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t , i n h i s o p i n i o n , i t would
c o s t about $1,000 t o r e p a i r t h e e x i t r o a d ; t h a t t h e e n t r a n c e road
should have a g u a r a n t e e of one year on i t , b u t t h a t he had n o t de-
termined what i t would t a k e t o r e p a i r i t . He then went on t o
t e s t i f y t h a t i t would t a k e $7,000 t o r e s u r f a c e t h e e n t i r e a r e a .
orriso on-Maierle's p r o g r e s s e s t i m a t e #5 s t a t e d , i n p a r t :
"The T o t a l Earned of $293,773.95 does n o t i n c l u d e t h e
prime o r s e a l o i l o r t h e crushed cover a g g r e g a t e f o r
t h e E x i t Road. These have been deducted from t h e amount
due a t t h e bottom of Page 5 s i n c e t h e E x i t Road c o n s t r u c -
t i o n i s n o t a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e Engineer o r Owner. I I
From t h i s i t appears t h a t any damages a r i s i n g from t h e e x i t road
have a l r e a d y been taken o u t of p l a i n t i f f s ' c o n t r a c t sums due, b u t
n o t h i n g was t e s t i f i e d t o a s t o how much t h e e n t r a n c e r e p a i r s would
b e , u n l e s s t h e o v e r a l l f i g u r e of $7,000 was used minus t h e $1,500
f i n d i n g f o r t h e c o s t t o r e p a i r t h e e x i t r o a d , l e a v i n g a f i g u r e of
$5,500 f o r r e p a i r s t o t h e e n t r a n c e road.
The campground was opened and f u n c t i o n a l on September 27, 1971,
and according t o t h e s u p e r v i s i n g e n g i n e e r ' s e s t i m a t e was 99 p e r c e n t
complete.
When t h e e n g i n e e r ' s p r o g r e s s r e p o r t 1/4, covering t h e p e r i o d
from August 20 t o November 11, 1971, was submitted f o r t h e amount o f
$49,064.45, defendant r e f u s e d t o pay. When t h e f i n a l p r o g r e s s
estimate -- It
Estimate No. F ' i v e - ~ i n a l " , c o v e r i n g November 11,1971 t o
August 20, 1972, was submitted t o defendant i t d e c l a r e d t h e p r o j e c t
100 p e r c e n t complete and d i r e c t e d defendant t o pay p l a i n t i f f s t h e
f u r t h e r sum of $77,414.35. This has n o t been paid.
The t r i a l c o u r t awarded p l a i n t i f f s a judgment i n t h e amount of
$70,680.55, p l u s i n t e r e s t on t h a t amount a t s i x p e r c e n t p e r annum t o
d a t e of judgment o r $6,738.85, and t h e sum of $7,500 a t t o r n e y f e e s .
O a p p e a l defendant r a i s e s t h e s e i s s u e s :
n
1. Was t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o j u s t i f y t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s
f i n d i n g s t h a t t h e sum of $5,400 was n e c e s s a r y t o conform t h e shower
s t a l l s t o t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , and t h e concomitant i s s u e of what
method i s t o be used t o measure t h e damages i n c u r r e d when an owner
must r e p a i r t h e f a u l t y work of t h e c o n t r a c t o r ?
2. Did t h e evidence j u s t i f y an award of only $1,500 t o r e -
p l a c e and r e p a i r t h e e x i t and e n t r a n c e r o a d s t o t h e campground?
3, Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n f i n d i n g t h a t defendant was n o t
e n t i t l e d t o l i q u i d a t e d damages f o r t h e 57 day d e l a y i n t h e p r o j e c t ?
4. Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s award of $7,500 a t t o r n e y f e e s
c o n s t i t u t e undue h a r d s h i p i n l i g h t of t h e o t h e r p e n a l t i e s awarded?
I s s u e No. 1 q u e s t i o n s whether t h e evidence j u s t i f i e d t h e
c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e showers. A l l parties t o t h i s action
recognized t h a t t h e showers d i d n o t meet t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . The
only q u e s t i o n b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t was whether t h e showers could
b e r e i n f o r c e d and brought up t o t h e c o n t r a c t s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . o r
whether t h e y would have t o b e removed and r e p l a c e d by t h e showers
called for i n the specifications.
The evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t a t a meeting a t t e n d e d by t h e con-
s u l t i n g e n g i n e e r s , p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , John
Konold, i t was agreed t h a t p l a i n t i f f s would improve t h e s t a l l s by
p u t t i n g styrofoam s h e e t i n g between them t o make them r i g i d and
the wall solid. Following t h a t meeting a l l shower s t a l l s were
p u l l e d o u t , styrofoam s h e e t s were p u t i n , and t h e s t a l l s r e p l a c e d .
However, t h e problem of t h e shower b a s e s had n o t a r i s e n a t t h a t
point. A s p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , t h e r e i s evidence of t h r e e d i f f e r e n t
e s t i m a t e s f o r damages on t h e showers: (1) t h e r e a s o n a b l e c o s t t o
r e p a i r and provide e q u a l showers; (2) c o s t of t o t a l replacement of
showers; and ( 3 ) t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e c o s t of i n s t a l l i n g t h e s p e c i f i e d
shower s t a l l s and t h e c o s t of i n s t a l l i n g t h e shower s t a l l s t h a t were
actually installed. Defendant argues t h e damages i t s u s t a i n e d by
p l a i n t i f f s ' f a i l u r e t o complete t h e c o n t r a c t according t o s p e c i f i c a -
t i o n s i s computed by t h e c o s t of c o r r e c t i n g and completing t h e
s t a l l s , n o t t h e v a l u e which t h e c o n t r a c t o r s u p p l i e d on t h e c o n t r a c t
t o defendant.
P l a i n t i f f s a r g u e t h i s Court has n o t p r e v i o u s l y r u l e d on what
i s t h e proper measure of damages f o r d e f e c t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n .
However, i n M i t c h e l l v. Carlson, 132 Mont. 1, 5 , 7, 313 P.2d 717,
t h e Court d i d c o n s i d e r t h e damage q u e s t i o n i n a c a s e i n v o l v i n g a
homeowner's s u i t f o r damages, a s a r e s u l t of a poorly b u i l t home.
There t h e Court looked t o t h e s t a t u t e d e f i n i n g t h e measure o f
damages, s e c t i o n 17-301, R..C.M. 1947, which provides:
For t h e breach of an o b l i g a t i o n a r i s i n g from c o n t r a c t ,
11
t h e measure of damages, except where otherwise e x p r e s s l y
provided by t h i s code, i s t h e amount which w i l l compen-
s a t e t h e p a r t y aggrieved f o r a l l t h e d e t r i m e n t proximately
caused t h e r e b y , o r which, i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e of t h i n g s ,
would be l i k e l y t o r e s u l t therefrom. 11
The Court i n M i t c h e l l i n upholding an i n s t r u c t i o n given which
was a verbatim r e s t a t e m e n t of s e c t i o n 17-301, R.C.M. 1947, s a i d :
"Applying t h e s t a t u t o r y r u l e of damages t o t h i s c a s e i t
i s a p p a r e n t t h a t p l a i n t i f f s w i l l be compensated only
f o r t h e ' d e t r i m e n t proximately caused' by t h e b r e a c h , v i z . ,
t h e c o s t of making t h e r e p a i r s n e c e s s a r y t o complete t h e
house i n accordance w i t h t h e p a r t i e s ' agreement. 11
I n M i t c h e l l t h e Court c i t e d an Oklahoma c a s e , N a t i o n a l Surety
Co. v. Board of Education, 62 Okl. 259, 162 P. 1108, where t h e
Oklahoma c o u r t i n t e r p r e t e d a s t a t u t e s i m i l a r t o t h a t of Montana and
a r r i v e d a t t h e same b a s i s f o r damages. Also i n M i t c h e l l t h e Court
quoted from Montgomery v. Karavas, 45 N.M. 287, 114 P.2d 776,781:
l h e r e t h e c o n t r a c t o r f a i l s t o keep h i s agreement,
11 I
t h e measure of t h e employer's [owner's] damages,
whether sought i n an independent a c t i o n o r by r e -
coupment o r c o u n t e r c l a i m , i s always t h e sum which
w i l l put him i n a s good a p o s i t i o k a s i f t h e c o n t r a c t
had been performed.,If t h e d e f e c t i s remedial from
a p r a c t i c a l s t a n d p o i n t , recovery g e n e r a l l y w i l l be
based on t h e market p r i c e of completing o r c o r r e c t i n g
t h e performance, and t h i s w i l l g e n e r a l l y be shown by
t h e c o s t of g e t t i n g work done o r completed by a n o t h e r
person. *** 5 W i l l i s t o n on C o n t r a c t s , Sec. 1362. "'
(Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) .
P l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t t h e Court s o h e l d i n M i t c h e l l because
i t was faced w i t h a f a c t s i t u a t i o n t h a t r e q u i r e d t e a r i n g down
c o n s t r u c t i o n a l r e a d y i n p l a c e , i n f e r r i n g t h a t such an a p p l i c a t i o n
of t h e r u l e should apply i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . Such an a p p l i c a t i o n
cannot be given t o t h e f a c t s h e r e f o r , by b o t h c o n t r a c t and s t i p u -
l a t i o n , t h e p a r t i e s agreed t o a c c e p t t h e s u p e r v i s i n g e n g i n e e r ' s
d e c i s i o n on a l l q u e s t i o n s a s t o a c c e p t a b l e f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e
c o n t r a c t by t h e c o n t r a c t o r . Here, we have opinions a s t o t h e c o s t
of redoing t h e showers and t h e i r b a s e s t o b r i n g them w i t h i n t h e
contract standards. Those opinion f i g u r e s v a r i e d from $300 p e r
shower by t h e s u p e r v i s i n g e n g i n e e r , t o t h e c o s t f o r t o t a l r e p l a c e -
ment of $14,886. The t r i a l c o u r t found t h e $300 p e r shower f i g u r e
o r a t o t a l o f $5,400 would remedy t h e shower s i t u a t i o n . W find
e
no e r r o r on t h e p a r t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
Defendant's i s s u e 2 q u e s t i o n s t h e award of $4500 t o r e p l a c e
and r e p a i r t h e e x i t and e n t r a n c e roads. Both p a r t i e s a r g u e t h e
c o u r t was i n e r r o r i n s e t t l i n g on t h e f i g u r e o f $$500. Defendant
alleges the figure i s arbitrary. P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e (1) t h e r e i s
n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t an award i n excess of $1,000 and,
( 2 ) because t h e e n g i n e e r i n g f i r m , i n p r e p a r i n g t h e f i n a l p r o g r e s s
r e p o r t , deducted $640 from t h e c o n t r a c t p r i c e a s a r e s u l t of t h e
u n s a t i s f a c t o r y e x i t road, t h a t no damages should be awarded f o r t h e
r e p a i r of t h e e x i t road. Not so! Olmstead t e s t i f i e d t h e r e was a
one year warranty on t h e r o a d ; t h a t i t was improperly s e a l e d and
c o a t e d ; and, t h a t p l a i n t i f f s were warned t h e road might have t o be
redone. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h e e x i t road would need r e s u r f a c i n g
and e s t i m a t e d t h e e x i t road would c o s t about $1,000 t o r e s u r f a c e
and t h e e n t i r e a r e a would c o s t about $7,000 t o r e s u r f a c e . Although
Olmstead could n o t s a y whether t h e e n t r a n c e road needed r e s u r f a c i n g
a t t h a t time, John Konold t e s t i f i e d t o t h e d e t e r i o r a t i o n of both
t h e e n t r a n c e and e x i t roads. While t h e r e c o r d does n o t r e v e a l why
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t decided t o award t h e sum of $1,500 f o r t h e r e p a i r
of t h e r o a d s , i t was w i t h i n t h e range of - t h e evidence
offered. The f a c t t h a t $640 was deducted from t h e c o n t r a c t p r i c e
would merely r e s u l t i n an o f f s e t from any damages s u f f e r e d by
defendant. I t would n o t preclude i t from damages. W f i n d no
e
error.
~ e f e n d a n t ' si s s u e 3 q u e s t i o n s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of
l i q u i d a t e d damages t o defendant f o r t h e 57 day delay.
The c o n t r a c t provided f o r l i q u i d a t e d damages a t t h e r a t e of
$100 per day f o r g e n e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n ; $100 p e r day f o r t h e b u i l d i n g
contract. The t r i a l c o u r t found t h e d e l a y , i f any, was c o n t r i b u t e d
t o by defendant o r waived by defendant. W agree.
e B & L Painting
Co., I n c . v. United P a c i f i c I n s . Co., Mon t . , 527 P.2d 554,
31 %.Rep. 868.
Were, t h e c o n t r a c t e e caused a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of t h e d e l a y
i n t h e b u i l d i n g and i n t h e p r o g r e s s of t h e work. Without any
agreement f o r an extens:ion of time t o o f f s e t t h e d e l a y , t h e time
f i x e d i n t h e c o n t r a c t and any p r o v i s i o n s f o r l i q u i d a t e d damages
based thereon a r e abrogated l e a v i n g t h e c o n t r a c t o r r e s p o n s i b l e only
t o complete t h e work w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e time. B & L P a i n t i n g Co.,
I n c . v. United P a c i f i c I n s . Co., supra; A'nno. 152 A.L.R. 1349,
1359; Figgins v. Stevenson, 163 Mont. 425, 517 P.2d 735, 30 St-Rep.
1201.
W n o t e h e r e , f o r c o r r e c t i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h a t an e r r o r
e
was made i n e s t i m a t i n g i n t e r e s t due. The c o n t r a c t , S e c t i o n 7.06,
provides :
"INTEREST ON UNPAID PROGRESS ESTIMATES: Should t h e
Owner f a i l t o pay a Progress Estimate w i t h i n t h i r t y
(30) days from t h e d a t e of t h e p r e p a r a t i o n by t h e
Engineer, and should he f a i l t o inform t h e Engineer and
t h e C o n t r a c t o r i n w r i t i n g of h i s reasons f o r withholding
payment, t h e Owner s h a l l pay t h e C o n t r a c t o r i n t e r e s t on
t h e amount of t h e P r o g r e s s Estimate a t t h e r a t e of s i x
per c e n t (6%) p e r annum u n t i l payment i s made. 11
Progress e s t i m a t e No. 4 covering t h e p e r i o d o f August 20
t o November 11, 1971, d i r e c t e d t h e owner (defendant) t o pay
$49,064.45. I t has never been paid. The t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o
compute i n t e r e s t from November 11, 1971 t o t h e d a t e of f i l i n g t h e
complaint on September 8 , 1972. A a d d i t i o n a l sum of $2,605.12
n
i s due and owing. C l i f t o n , Applegate & Toole v. Big Lake Drain
D i s t . No. 1, 82 Mont. 312, 267 P. 207.
F u r t h e r , t h e judgment should be i n c r e a s e d $350 f o r t h e c o s t
of a water v a l v e , allowed by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n i t s f i n d i n g of f a c t
No. 21. While n o t provided f o r i n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , i t was put
i n by agreement of t h e p a r t i e s and t h e c o n t r a c t o r should be r e i m -
bursed.
~ e f e n d a n t ' si s s u e 4 concerns t h e payment of a t t o r n e y f e e s .
The t r i a l c o u r t awarded p l a i n t i f f s $7,500 f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s and
defendant o b j e c t s t o t h e amount, a l l e g i n g i t was wrongfully awarded.
W f i n d no e r r o r .
e A s e n i o r member of t h e G a l l a t i n County Bar
t e s t i f i e d t h a t f e e s f o r such a c a s e should be from $15,000 t o $27,000.
The t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i g u r e of $7,500, o r approximately t e n p e r c e n t , i s
most c e r t a i n l y proper i n view of t h e problems which a r o s e . An
a d d i t i o n a l f e e f o r t h i s a p p e a l i s allowed i n t h e amount of $1,000.
The cause i s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r e n t r y of
judgment i n accordance herewith.
L.
W Concur:
e
/
*
>
---h---------C-------------------
' L
Chief J u s t i c e
.................................
Justices.
M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly concurring i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t :
I concur g e n e r a l l y w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y opinion b u t cannot a g r e e
w i t h t h e damage award d i s c u s s e d under i s s u e 2 t o r e p l a c e and r e p a i r
t h e e x i t and e n t r a n c e roadways. The c o n t r a c t o r surfaced t h e road-
way a f t e r being warned by t h e engineer i n charge t h a t i t was n o t
ready f o r s u r f a c i n g . The c o n t r a c t o r was informed he might have t o
come back and r e p a i r t h e road. The f u l l burden of t h i s road r e s t s
on t h e road c o n t r a c t o r under t h e s e circumstances.
The deduction on e s t i m a t e #5 made by t h e engineers f o r s e a l o i l
and cover aggregate i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a s i t p e r t a i n s t o reconstruc-
t i o n of t h e road and does n o t cover t h a t damage f i g u r e due t h e owner
f o r t h e e x i t p o r t i o n , much l e s s t h e entrance. There i s testimony
t h a t b o t h e x i t and e n t r a n c e roads need a t t e n t i o n due t o d e t e r i o r a -
t i o n and t h e e n t i r e job would c o s t $7,000. Under t h e circumstances
t h e $1,500 award i s e r r o r .
Justice.
5'
"
-- ----- ---