Zook Bros. Construction Company v. State

No. 12983 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 197 6 ZOOK BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - THE STATE OF MONTANA, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable P e t e r Meloy, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant : Gough, Booth, Shanahan and Johnson, Helena, Montana Ronald Waterman a r g u e d , Helena, Montana P a t r i c k S u l l i v a n a r g u e d , Spokane, Washington F o r Respondent : Donald Douglas a p p e a r e d , Helena, Montana Cannon and G a r r i t y , Helena, Montgna Donald G a r r i t y a r g u e d , Helena, Montana S u b m i t t e d : J u n e 3, 1976 Decided : - 25 pr 7 fl\JG 2 k, **',-'? Filed: M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lewis and Clark County. Zook B r o t h e r s Construction Company (Zook) and t h e Montana Department of Highways ( S t a t e ) e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t i n June 1967, whereby Zook agreed t o c o n s t r u c t a segment of highway r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e "Montana C i t y P r o j e c t 1 ' , a 6.083 segment of i n t e r s t a t e and secondary highway i n J e f f e r s o n County, s o u t h of Helena, Montana. The c o n t r a c t allowed 300 days f o r completion of t h e p r o j e c t and involved a $3,000,000 c o n t r a c t between t h e parties. The i n s t a n t c a s e i n v o l v e s Zook's c l a i m f o r damages a l l e g e d l y caused by t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o inform Zook t h e S t a t e lacked r i g h t - of-way a c c e s s t o p o r t i o n s of t h e p r o j e c t , which i s claimed t o have caused a d e l a y i n scheduled o p e r a t i o n s and e s c a l a t e d c o s t s of com- pletion. Zook contends 1 ) i t i s e n t i t l e d t o damages f o r c o s t s i n c u r r e d i n completion of t h e p r o j e c t , 2) f o r t h e c o s t of "standby" on equipment it was unable t o u t i l i z e due t o unforeseen d e l a y s , and 3) f o r p r o f i t s a l l e g e d l y l o s t on t h i s p r o j e c t and subsequent p r o j e c t s due t o t h e d e l a y s and t i e u p of a s s e t s . The d e l a y s r e l i e d upon by Zook a s a b a s i s f o r i t s c l a i m were occasioned ( a ) by Montana Power Company's problem i n o b t a i n i n g a right-of-way f o r r e l o c a t i o n of a u t i l i t y l i n e , and ( b ) b y t h e i n a b i l i t y of t h e S t a t e t o o b t a i n right-of-way a c r o s s v a r i o u s mining claims through t h e p r o j e c t . (a) The u t i l i t y d e l a y . The S t a t e , a f t e r planning t h e g e n e r a l l o c a t i o n of t h e highway t o be c o n s t r u c t e d , took s t e p s t o s e c u r e a right-of-way and t o remove e x i s t i n g u t i l i t i e s from t h e a r e a . The Montana Power Company was c o n t a c t e d regarding t h e r e l o c a t i o n of an e l e c t r i c a l transmission l i n e . A r e l o c a t i o n c o n t r a c t w i t h Montana Power was approved by t h e S t a t e on June 27, 1967 and contained a p r o v i s i o n t h a t a l l u t i l i t y moves were expected t o be completed by August 31, 1967. Relocation of t h e power l i n e was c r i t i c a l t o Zook's schedule f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n , i n t h a t t h e l i n e had t o be removed p r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n of a f r o n t a g e road upon which Zook had planned t o d i v e r t t r a f f i c t o complete t h e main highway c o n s t r u c - tion. The power l i n e was n o t r e l o c a t e d u n t i l A p r i l 1968. (b) The mining c l a i m d e l a y . The S t a t e encountered problems i n o b t a i n i n g t h e right-of-way through v a r i o u s mining claims w i t h i n t h e work a r e a . Zook was ad- v i s e d t o begin c o n s t r u c t i o n on J u l y 17, 1967, although t h e S t a t e was aware t h e r e were v a r i o u s problems o b t a i n i n g right-of-way through t h e mining claims. A t a p r e c o n s t r u c t i o n conference h e l d be- tween t h e S t a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and Zook personnel on J u l y 19, 1967, Zook advised t h e S t a t e of i t s schedule f o r completion of t h e v a r i o u s phases of t h e p r o j e c t . The S t a t e d i s c u s s e d such d i v e r s e problems a s s a f e t y and t h e p r o t e c t i o n of w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t . The S t a t e d i d n o t a d v i s e Zook personnel of t h e right-of-way d i f f i c u l t i e s i t was encountering. Upon r e c e i p t of t h e S t a t e ' s o r d e r t o proceed on J u l y 17, 1967, Zook began t o mobilize a l l of t h e n e c e s s a r y equipment f o r completion of t h e p r o j e c t according t o t h e agreed schedule. However, on J u l y 27, 1967, t h e S t a t e i s s u e d a suspension o r d e r t o Zook which prevented Zook from proceeding w i t h c o n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e a r e a of t h e mining claims during n e g o t i a t i o n f o r and t e s t i n g of these claims. Zook's schedule c a l l e d f o r completion of "Frontage Road No.4" by September 15, 1967, and d i v e r s i o n of t r a f f i c from t h e e x i s t i n g route t o u t i l i z e sophisticated b l a s t i n g techniques, which were i n t e n d e d t o reduce g r e a t q u a n t i t i e s of r o c k t o a s i z e t h a t would a l l o w e x c a v a t i o n w i t h s e l f - l o a d i n g " s c r a p e r s " of l a r g e rock c u t s . Zook a l s o planned t o use l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of t h e excavated r o c k and m a t e r i a l a s f i l l i n t h e a r e a involved i n t h e mining c l a i m s t o p o r d e r . However, because of t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o o b t a i n t h e n e c e s s a r y right-of-way, Zook was f o r c e d t o abandon i t s p l a n of t r a f f i c d i v e r s i o n and v a r i o u s f i l l and e x c a v a t i o n r e q u i r e - ments were delayed s e v e r a l weeks. R e s t r i c t i o n s on work i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e mining c l a i m s were l i f t e d on September 2 2 , 1967; t h e power p o l e s were removed by October 1 7 , 1967; Frontage Road No. 4 was t h e n a v a i l a b l e f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n work. On September 6 , 1967, Zook p e r s o n n e l informed t h e S t a t e by l e t t e r t h a t t h e u t i l i t y p o l e problem and theI1mining c l a i m s d e l a y has r e a l l y f o u l e d up o u r s c h e d u l e f o r completion of t h i s project and f e e l we should be g i v e n f u l l c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e s e d e l a y s . " On November 12, 1968, Zook submitted a c l a i m f o r damages r e s u l t i n g from t h e d e l a y s which i t claimed caused t h e 116 day over-run on t h e scheduled completion d a t e . T h i s c l a i m was r e j e c t e d by t h e S t a t e . On March 24, 1972 Zook f i l e d a "complete Documentation" [ ~ o o k ' sd e s c r i p t i o n ] of i t s c l a i m f o r an amount f a r i n e x c e s s of i t s o r i g i n a l claim. Following t h e submission of t h i s c l a i m , t h e S t a t e undertook an a u d i t of t h e Zook r e c o r d s f o r t h e purpose of e v a l u a t i o n of t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e c l a i m r e l a t i n g t o equipment standby c o s t s . Zook's c l a i m was o r a l l y denied by t h e D i r e c t o r of t h e S t a t e Highway Commission a f t e r s e v e r a l meetings between t h e p a r t i e s t o discuss t h a t claim. - 4 - Zook brought s u i t i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o r e c o v e r t h e amount claimed, based on t h e s t a t e ' s a l l e g e d b r e a c h i n f a i l i n g t o s e c u r e t h e right-of-way. After a lengthy t r i a l the d i s t r i c t court determined: "The S t a t e of Montana m a t e r i a l l y breached i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h Zook and t h e damages which Zook s u f f e r e d t h e r e b y were a d i r e c t and proximate r e s u l t of such breach." Zook was awarded a t o t a l of $140,917 i n damages, c o n s i s t i n g of $125,000 f o r maintenance of equipment i n standby s t a t u s , and $15,917 a s a d d i t i o n a l expense f o r t r a f f i c c o n t r o l c o s t s i n c u r r e d due t o i t s i n a b i l i t y t o complete Frontage Road No. 4 . Zook a p p e a l s c l a i m i n g i t i s e n t i t l e d t o damages fa.r i n e x c e s s of t h o s e g r a n t e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The S t a t e c r o s s - a p p e a l s on t h e b a s i s Zook's c l a i m i s b a r r e d by t h e s p e c i a l s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s p r e s c r i b e d by s e c t i o n 83-602, R.C.M. 1947, and by t h e terms of t h e c o n t r a c t and t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h a t a b r e a c h had o c c u r r e d i s n o t supported by t h e evidence. Hearing was had on March 5 , 1976 b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , and on March 2 5 , 1976, t h e Court o r d e r e d a d d i t i o n a l b r i e f s and argument l i m i t e d t o : 1. Causal connection between b r e a c h and damages. 2. Equipment standby c o s t s . 3. Traffic control costs. 4. Administrative c o s t s . Arguments h e a r d on June 3 , 1976 were r e s t r i c t e d t o a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e f o u r items enumerated. The S t a t e contends t h e c l a i m o f Zook i s b a r r e d by t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 83-602, R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s i n p e r - tinent part: "Whenever any c o n t r a c t i n g agency of t h e s t a t e of Montana provides a procedure f o r t h e s e t t l e m e n t of any q u e s t i o n o r d i s p u t e a r i s i n g between t h e con- t r a c t o r and s a i d agency, t h e c o n t r a c t o r , b e f o r e proceeding t o b r i n g an a c t i o n i n c o u r t under p r o v i s i o n of t h i s a c t , must r e s o r t t o such procedure w i t h i n t h e time s p e c i f i e d i n h i s c o n t r a c t o r , i f no time i s s p e c i f i e d , w i t h i n n i n e t y (90) days a f t e r t h e q u e s t i o n o r d i s p u t e has a r i s e n ** *.I' The c o n t r a c t between t h e p a r t i e s c o n t a i n s a p r o v i s i o n r e q u i r i n g : " I n c a s e any claim o r d i s p u t e a r i s e s between t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o , r e s p e c t i n g any m a t t e r p e r t a i n i n g t o t h i s agreement *** said claim o r dispute s h a l l be r e f e r r e d t o t h e Commission by t h e c o n t r a c t o r i n w r i t i n g , and a r e q u e s t f o r a h e a r i n g w i t h i n a p e r i o d of s i x t y (60) days a f t e r t h e claim o r d i s p u t e h a s arisen ** *.If The S t a t e argues Zook's cause of a c t i o n , i f any, a r o s e a s of t h e J u l y 27, 1967 o r d e r from t h e D i r e c t o r t o s t o p work i n t h e a r e a of t h e mining c l a i m s . The S t a t e urges t h e c o n t r a c t l i m i t s t h e time f o r f i l i n g of a c l a i m t o w i t h i n t h e 60 day p e r i o d following t h e d a t e of t h e d e l a y . It claims t h e September 6 , 1967 l e t t e r from Zook's g e n e r a l manager f a i l s t o s t a t e a c l a i m i n t h a t i t does not contain demand f o r a d d i t i o n a l compensation, n o r does e x p r e s s an i n t e n t i o n t o submit such a c l a i m a t any 1 a . t e r d a t e . I t a l s o n o t e s t h e l e t t e r does n o t d i r e c t i t s e l f t o t h e Commission. These a l l e g e d f a c t s a r e urged a s grounds f o r f i n d i n g t h a t Zook time f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t a c l a i m w i t h i n the/provided, i . e . 60 days. This Court i s i n agreement w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s conclu- sion t h a t these contentions a r e t o t a l l y without merit. The claim i s n e i t h e r b a r r e d on s t a t u t o r y nor c o n t r a c t u a l grounds. The l e t t e r from Zook was addressed t o a M r . Richard B . Dundas, D i s t r i c t En- g i n e e r , S t a t e Highway Commission, and was s e n t approximately 40 days a f t e r t h e work stoppage o r d e r was promulgated. Zook's l e t t e r c l e a r l y expressed t h e c o n t r a c t o r ' s concern regarding t h e e f f e c t of t h e d e l a y s on t h e o v e r - a l l p r o j e c t . 'i. A T h e r e a f t e r t h e S t a t e considered t h e m a t t e r , a u d i t e d Zook's r e c o r d s r e g a r d i n g i t s c l a i m f o r standby expenses and h e l d s e v e r a l h e a r i n g s , a t Zook's r e q u e s t , regarding t h e v a r i e d claims of Zook. To d a t e , Zook h a s r e c e i v e d o n l y an o r a l d e n i a l of i t s claims on February 26, 1973, by t h e D i r e c t o r of t h e S t a t e Highway Department. L i t i g a t i o n was commenced A p r i l 20, 1973 and i s c l e a r l y n o t b a r r e d by t h e c o n t r a c t u a l l i m i t a t i o n s nor t h e s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n s . The l o g i c a l r u l e , and t h e r u l e adopted i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s , i s t h a t a c l a i m o r d i s p u t e ARISES a t t h e time t h e S t a t e submits a f i n a l e s t i m a t e t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r f o r h i s approval o r r e j e c t i o n . Terry C o n t r a c t i n g , I n c . v. S t a t e of New York, 280 N.Y.S.2d 450 (1967); Waterman v. S t a t e of New York, 241 N.Y.S.2d 314 (1963). To d a t e , no such f i n a l e s t i m a t e has e v e r been submitted t o Zook by t h e S t a t e . The S t a t e ' s r e l i a n c e on s t a t u t o r y o r c o n t r a c t u a l l i m i t a t i o n s i s a l s o without m e r i t f o r t h e reason t h e S t a t e , through i t s own a c t i o n s , l e d Zook t o b e l i e v e t h a t i t s claim would r e c e i v e t i m e l y a t t e n t i o n and would be reviewed by t h e S t a t e pending an adminis- t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n on i t s m e r i t s . Zook r e l i e d upon t h e a s s u r a n c e s i n t h e S t a t e ' s l e t t e r d a t e d September 12, 1967, t h a t t h e S t a t e would g i v e f u l l c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o a l l f a c t o r s r e l a t i v e t o t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o o b t a i n right-of-way. Clearly, the S t a t e i s foreclosed from r a i s i n g a s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s defense given t h e above f a c t s . The S t a t e a l s o u r g e s t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence i n t h e r e c o r d of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o support a f i n d i n g t h e r e was a breach of c o n t r a c t upon which t o base an award of damages t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r , Zook. This Court, i n detemining a s i m i l a r d i s p u t e , h e l d t h e f a i l u r e t o o b t a i n highway right-of-way i s a m a t e r i a l breach o f c o n t r a c t which, i f i t d e l a y s a c o n t r a c t o r , w i l l s u s t a i n an award of damages. Laas v. Montana Highway Comm'n, 157 Mont. 121, 125, 132,483 P.2d 699 (1971). The Standard S p e c i f i c a t i o n s p o r t i o n of t h e c o n t r a c t e n t e r e d i n t o h e r e provides i n p a r t : "07.17 FURNISHING RIGHT-OF-WAY. A l l right-of-way f o r t h e roadway s h a l l be provided by t h e Commission w i t h o u t c o s t t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r . A l l right-of-way may n o t have been obtained a t t h e time when t h e b i d s a r e opened and t h e proposal c o n s i d e r e d , and i n t h a t c a s e t h e award w i l l n o t be made u n t i l t h e e n t i r e right-of-way h a s been o b t a i n e d . The 'submission of a b i d w i l l be c o n s t r u e d a s an acceptance of t h i s c o n d i t i o n by t h e b i d d e r , and no c l a i m f o r damage o r l o s s of unavoidable d e l a y i n s e c u r i n g right-of-way w i l l be considered by t h e Commission. I f t h e c o n t r a c t i s m a t e r i a l l y delayed because of right-of-way d i f f i c u l t i e s , due c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i l l be given by t h e Commission i n extending t h e c o n t r a c t time t o make proper allowances t h e r e f o r . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) The c o n t r a c t between Zook and t h e S t a t e was signed n e a r l y f o u r months p r i o r t o t h e S t a t e ' s o b t a i n i n g of t h e right-of-way i n t h e a r e a of t h e mining claims. Considering s i m i l a r evidence a s e s t a b l i s h - ing a breach of c o n t r a c t , t h i s Court noted i n Laas: - "There i s l i t t l e q u e s t i o n b u t t h a t t h e r e was a breach of c o n t r a c t by t h e S t a t e i n f a i l i n g t o s e c u r e t h e right-of-way a c r o s s t h e Emery p r o p e r t y . *** The s t a n d a r d s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , one of t h e c o n t r a c t i n g docu- ments, s p e c i f i c a l l y provided t h a t t h e S t a t e would provide a l l of t h e right-of-way f o r t h e roadway w i t h o u t c o s t t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r . The same document f u r t h e r provided t h a t i f t h e right-of-way had n o t been o b t a i n e d a t t h e time when t h e b i d s were opened, t h e award would n o t be made u n t i l t h e e n t i r e right-of-way had been o b t a i n e d . C l e a r l y , t h e p l a i n t i f f had a r i g h t t o assume, when he r e c e i v e d t h e award and t h e o r d e r t o proceed, t h a t t h e right-of-way had been o b t a i n e d , o r would be obtained w i t h o u t d e t r i m e n t t o him. "The s t a n d a r d s p e c i f i c a t i o n s t a k e i n t o account t h a t t h e r e may be d e l a y between t h e time t h e b i d s a r e opened and t h e award i s .made because of unavoidable d i f f i c u l t i e s i n s e c u r i n g t h e right-of-way, and f u r t h e r provide t h a t no c l a i m f o r damages o r l o s s of a n t i c i p a t e d p r o f i t s on t h a t account may be made. But, no p r o v i s i o n i s made f o r d e l a y i n s e c u r i n g right-of-way a f t e r t h e award has been made and t h e o r d e r t o proceed given. The s t a n d a r d s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f u r t h e r provide t h a t i f t h e c o n t r a c t i s m a t e r i a l l y delayed because of right-of-way d i f f i c u l t i e s , due c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i l l be g i v e n by t h e S t a t e i n extending t h e c o n t r a c t t i m e t o make proper allowance t h e r e f o r . T h i s may a s s i s t t h e c o n t r a c t o r i n avoiding t h e p e n a l t y c l a u s e , b u t i t i s a f a r c r y from compensating him f o r i d l e d men and equipment because of d e l a y brought about by t h e f a i l u r e of t h e S t a t e t o s e c u r e t h e right-of-way b e f o r e awarding t h e c o n t r a c t , ." o r i n r e a s o n a b l e time t h e r e a f t e r The d i s t r i c t c o u r t determined i n i t s c o n c l u s i o n s of law t h a t "The S t a t e of Montana m a t e r i a l l y breached i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h Zook and t h e damages which Zook s u f f e r e d t h e r e b y were a d i r e c t and proximate r e s u l t of such breach." It i s c l e a r t h e record s u p p o r t s such a c o n c l u s i o n and i t w i l l n o t be s e t a s i d e by t h i s Court. Zook a c t e d i n r e l i a n c e upon t h e S t a t e ' s i m p l i c i t r e p r e - s e n t a t i o n t h e right-of-way had been o b t a i n e d and s u f f e r e d g r e a t I expense a s a r e s u l t . The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t Zook assembled ample equipment t o complete t h i s p r o j e c t i n t h e time i n t e n d e d . Testimony from Zook's and t h e S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t Zook was a competent and e f f i c i e n t highway c o n t r a c t o r and t h i s p r o j e c t was performed a s e f f i c i e n t l y a s p o s s i b l e , under t h e c i r - cumstances. Zook proceeded w i t h g r a d i n g a c t i v i t i e s even though f o r e c l o s e d from o p e r a t i o n i n two c r i t i c a l a r e a s , Frontage Road No. 4 and t h e r a i l r o a d o v e r p a s s . Zook a l s o worked a s much a s p o s s i b l e d u r i n g t h e w i n t e r shutdown a s allowed by t h e c o n t r a c t , and t h e r e b y made some u s e of t h e equipment h e l d on t h e p r o j e c t f o r completion i n the spring. Thus, Zook made e v e r y r e a s o n a b l e a t t e m p t t o m i t i g a t e i t s damages under t h e S t a t e ' s breach. Having determined t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o t i m e l y r e l o c a t e t h e u t i l i t y l i n e s and o b t a i n right-of-way through t h e mining c l a i m s was a b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t t h a t materially damaged Zook, t h e q u e s t i o n now becomes t h e p r o p e r measure of t h o s e damages. Section 17-301, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s : "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 , 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 compensate t h e p a r t y aggrieved f o r a l l detriment proximately caused thereby, o r which, i n t h e o r d i n a r y course of t h i n g s , would be l i k e l y t o r e s u l t therefrom." For damages t o be r e c o v e r a b l e under s e c t i o n 17-301, t h e y must "have been w i t h i n t h e contemplation of t h e p a r t i e s when they e n t e r e d i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t , and such a s might n a t u r a l l y be expected t o r e s u l t from i t s v i o l a t i o n . " Myers v. Bender, 46 Mont. 497, 508, 129 P. 330. O a p p e a l , Zook seeks compensation f o r t h r e e s e p a r a t e n a r e a s of damage: 1 ) i n c r e a s e d c o s t s of performing t h e c o n t r a c t ; 2) standby c o s t s f o r i d l e d equipment; and 3) l o s t p r o f i t s . These c o n s t i t u t e t h e proper measure of damages under t h e f a c t s . The c o n t r a c t was l e t f o r almost $3,000,000. I t involved complete c o n s t r u c - t i o n of over s i x m i l e s of i n t e r s t a t e highway. A t one time o r a n o t h e r , Zook had approximately $3,000,000 worth of equipment on t h e job. It i s c l e a r t h e l o s s e s claimed by Zook were f o r e s e e a b l e and would n a t u r a l l y flow from a s u b s t a n t i a l d e l a y i n performance of t h e c o n t r a c t . The d e l a y t h a t d i d occur was caused by t h e S t a t e , t h e r e f o r e t h e s e l o s s e s a r e p r o p e r l y compensable under s e c t i o n 17-301, R.C.M. 1947. 1) To e s t a b l i s h i t s claim f o r i n c r e a s e d performance c o s t s , Zook u t i l i z e d t h e a c t u a l b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s maintained d u r i n g i t s work on t h e Montana C i t y P r o j e c t . These r e c o r d s were introduced and admitted without o b j e c t i o n during t r i a l . Zook's r e c o r d s con- t a i n e d a c t u a l c o s t s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e pay items w i t h i n t h e S t a t e ' s contract. Zook l i m i t e d i t s cla.im t o n i n e c r i t i c a l items of highway c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s t h a t were i n f l u e n c e d by t h e S t a . t e ls breach. Zook's r e c o r d s show i t c o s t Zook $1,440,483 i n s t r a i g h t f i e l d c o s t s t o perform t h e work. I t a l s o i n c u r r e d i n d i r e c t job c o s t s of $166,088 and a g e n e r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e expense of $158,408. Payments by t h e S t a t e f o r t h e s e s e v e r a l items t o t a l e d $1,146,293.42, r e s u l t i n g i n Zook's l o s s of $618,685.58 on i t s performance of t h e contract. Zook introduced s e v e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e methods of determining i t s loss. One method c o n s i s t e d of an a u d i t of c o s t s and revenues f o r t h e e n t i r e job i n c l u d i n g equipment ownership expense. Under t h i s method, Zook s u f f e r e d a l o s s of $652,542,85. Another method c a l c u l a t e d t h e reasonable c o s t of performing t h e c o n t r a c t and compared it t o t h e S t a t e payments. Escalated c o s t s i n e i g h t areas of job performance were compared a g a i n s t S t a t e revenues. The r e s u l t showed a l o s s t o Zook of $663,026.66. Methods of computing t h e amount of damages may v a r y from case t o case. Under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , t h e Court b e l i e v e s t h e r e s u l t d e r i v e d from Zook's a c t u a l c o s t r e c o r d s i s t h e b e s t evidence of Zook's a c t u a l l o s s . W mention t h e o t h e r methods and e t h e l o s s e s they show only t o r e i n f o r c e t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e l o s s shown by Zook's a c t u a l c o s t r e c o r d s i s reasonably c e r t a i n and accurate. 2) Zook claims damages of $613,387 f o r equipment standby. The c l a i m i s based on a l i s t of approximately 100 p i e c e s of equip- ment i d l e d because o f t h e S t a t e ' s breach. Standby time was computed by examining Zook's b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s t o determine t h e a c t u a l oper- a t i n g and r e p a i r hours f o r each p i e c e of equipment i n each week of a 10 month p e r i o d running from August 1967 t o May 1968. These hours were s u b t r a c t e d from a base of 40 hours p e r week. The d i f f e r e n c e was standby. T h i s method of computing standby time was n e c e s s a r y s i n c e n e i t h e r Zook nor t h e S t a t e maintained standby r e c o r d s during t h e Montana C i t y P r o j e c t . I n t h e absence of such r e c o r d s , t h e use of a 40 hour week a s t h e measure of standby time was r e a s o n a b l e under t h e circumstances. Zook planned t o schedule 2 10-hour work shifts 6 days a week o r a t l e a s t 2 8-hour s h i f t s 5 days a week. T h i s , t h e evidence shows, i s common p r a c t i c e i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n industry. Compared t o t h e a n t i c i p a t e d o p e r a t i n g hours of 80 t o 120 hours p e r week, 40 hours i s n o t an a r b i t r a r y g u i d e l i n e . To e s t a b l i s h t h e c o s t of t h e standby time, Zook used 50 p e r c e n t of t h e h o u r l y r e n t a l r a t e s promulgated by t h e Montana Highway Department and approved by t h e S t a t e Highway Commission. There was testimony i n t h e r e c o r d s t a t i n g t h e s e r a t e s were r e a s o n a b l e and below p r e v a l e n t r e n t a l r a t e s a t tha.t time. During t r i a l , counsel f o r t h e S t a t e r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t i t could n o t f i n d c e r t a i n p i e c e s of equipment shown on Zook's r e c o r d s a s working on t h e Montana C i t y P r o j e c t . Zook d e l e t e d and e l i m i n a t e d standby claims f o r s e v e r a l i t e m s , reducing t h e damages claimed by some $66,000. Zook's c l a i m f o r equipment standby c o s t s of $613,387 i s reasonable and amply supported by t h e r e c o r d . 3) Z o o k , f i n a l l y , a s k s f o r an award of l o s t p r o f i t s on t h e c o n t r a c t i n t h e amount of $88,249. T h i s amount i s e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e 5 p e r c e n t p r o f i t Zook a n t i c i p a t e d when i t b i d on t h e job. The r u l e i n Montana a s s t a t e d by t h i s Court i n Cruse v. Clawson, 137 Mont. 439, 448, 352 P.2d 989, and c i t e d i n -9Laas i s t h a t a party: "* * J may r e c o v e r f o r l o s s of p r o f i t s where i t i s ; shown t h a t such l o s s i s t h e n a t u r a l and d i r e c t r e s u l t of t h e a c t of t h e defendant complained of and t h a t such amount i s c e r t a i n and n o t s p e c u l a t i v e . " The r e c o r d i s r e p l e t e w i t h testimony t h a t Zook w a s a competent and e f f i c i e n t highway c o n t r a c t o r and t h a t i t performed t h e p r o j e c t a s e f f i c i e n t l y a s p o s s i b l e under t h e circumstances. Highway c o n s t r u c t i o n i s a hazardous p u r s u i t w i t h no g u a r a n t e e t h a t a p r o f i t w i l l b e r e a l i z e d on any p a r t i c u l a r job. Under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , however, we a r e convinced Zook should r e c o v e r i t s anticipated profit. The d e l a y s , caused by t h e S t a t e , g r e a t l y increased operating costs. They s e r i o u s l y d i s r u p t e d Zook's schedule and moved t h e p r o j e c t i n t o h i g h e r wage p e r i o d s and bad weather. The evidence showed Zook had t h e necessary equipment and e x p e r t i s e t o perform t h e c o n t r a c t i n a workmanlike manner were i t n o t f o r t h e S t a t e ' s breach. Under t h e s e f a c t s , Zook should r e c e i v e t h e b e n e f i t of i t s b a r g a i n . Zook a l s o a l l e g e s t h a t i t s l o s s e s on t h e Montana C i t y P r o j e c t forced i t t o s e l l much of i t s equipment, t h u s d e c r e a s i n g i t s p r o f i t s f o r s e v e r a l subsequent y e a r s . W concur w i t h t h e e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h a t t h e evidence a s t o t h e s e a l l e g e d l o s s e s i s vague and s p e c u l a t i v e . W f i n d no b a s i s i n t h e r e c o r d f o r an award of e damages f o r l o s s of f u t u r e p r o f i t s . T h i s Court i n Spackman v . Ralph M. Parsons, Co., 147 Mont. 500, 509, 414 P. 2d 918 (1966), s a i d t h e v e r d i c t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l be s e t a s i d e i f : ** i t can be shown w i t h r e a s o n a b l e c o n v i c t i o n t h a t the [finder of f a c t ] ***(3) made a mistake of law o r f a c t ; (4) based i t s f i n d i n g s on a m i s - understanding of law o r f a c t JC * Jc." Where a v e r d i c t does n o t appear t o have r e s u l t e d from p a s s i o n and p r e j u d i c e , and any e r r o r may be ascerta.ined by mathematical c a l c u l a t i o n , t h i s Court may p r o p e r l y modify t h e judgment w i t h o u t reversing it. See: N e s b i t t v . C i t y of B u t t e , 118 Mont. 84,94, 163 P.2d 251; M i l l e r v. Emerson, 120 Mont. 380, 381, 186 P.2d 220; A.T. Klemens & Son v. Reber Plumbing and Heating Co., 139 Mont. 115, 126, 360 P.2d 1005. This Court, a f t e r a review of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law, i s unable t o determine a b a s i s f o r t h e judgment rendered. From t h e r e c o r d we cannot d i s c e r n a b a s i s t h a t s u p p o r t s t h e damages award g i v e n , e i t h e r i n t h e f i r s t judgment o r i n t h e amended judgment which added an a d d i t i o n a l amount i n compensation f o r t r a f f i c c o n t r o l expenses i n c u r r e d . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t was faced w i t h an enormous volume of h i g h l y complex accounting evidence and d e t a i l e d t e c h n i c a l testimony p r e s e n t e d on b e h a l f of Zook and t h e S t a t e . A thorough review of t h e evidence and t h e r e c o r d of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t r i a l of t h i s m a t t e r , l e a d s t h i s Court t o t h e conclusion t h a t Zook i s r i g h t f u l l y e n t i t l e d t o t h e damages s e t f o r t h i n t h i s Opinion, l e s s t h e $140,917 awarded i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . W Concur: e Justices --.".*---- 7, /-*"'- 4.. && CLL- V - Hon. & C Edward T . D u s s a u l t , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T . Harrison. M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n part: I concur i n t h e h o l d i n g o f t h e m a j o r i t y t h a t t h e S t a t e breached t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t and t h a t Zook's c l a i m i s n o t b a r r e d by t h e s p e c i a l s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . I d i s s e n t from t h e amount of damages awarded by t h e majority -- $1,320,321.58, o r a l m o s t 1 0 t i m e s t h e damages awarded by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . T h i s award i s based on Zook's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e d e l a y s r e s u l t i n g from r e l o c a t i o n o f u t i l i t y p o l e s and a c q u i s i t i o n o f right-of-way o v e r mining c l a i m s i n o n e segment o f t h e p r o j e c t c a u s e d a " r i p p l e e f f e c t " on o t h e r segments of t h e p r o j e c t w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t t h e e n t i r e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t as c o n c e i v e d and b i d had t o be changed m a t e r i a l l y which c a u s e d l o s s e s h a l f a g a i n a s g r e a t a s t h e amount of t h e o r i g i n a l b i d and award. I n m view, t h e f o c u s of t h e i s s u e i s whether t h e S t a t e ' s y b r e a c h c a u s e d t h e damages c l a i m e d by Zook. On a p p e a l , t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t i s s i m p l y t o d e t e r - mine t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g and judgment. H o l e n s t e i n v . Andrews, 166 Mont. 60, 530 P.2d 476; Kirby v. K e l l y , 1 6 1 Mont. 66, 504 P.2d 683, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . H e r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h a t o n l y $140,917 of t h e c l a i m e d damages w e r e c a u s e d by t h e S t a t e ' s b r e a c h . The g i s t of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s r e a s o n i n g i s found i n t h e f o l l o w - i n g e x c e r p t from i t s o p i n i o n : " I t i s t h e o p i n i o n of t h i s C o u r t t h a t b o t h t h e S t a t e and t h e c o n t r a c t o r m i s c a l c u l a t e d t h e t o t a l time allowed f o r t h e completion of t h e c o n t r a c t . There was a n o v e r r u n of 116 d a y s d u e , i n p a r t , t o t h e d e l a y s o c c a s i o n e d by t h e S t a t e i n n o t h a v i n g t h e e n t i r e right-of-way a v a i l a b l e . Work s t a r t e d on J u l y 25, 1967, and t h e complete right-of-way was a v a i l a b l e i n mid-October, 1967. However, d u r i n g t h i s t i m e t h e c o n t r a c t o r w a s a v a i l a b l e t o work on and d i d work on a major p o r t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t . " I n m view, t h e e v i d e n c e , though c o n f l i c t i n g , i s s u f f i c i e n t y t o s u p p o r t t h i s f i n d i n g and judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . I would a f f i r m t h e judgment. Justice - 15 -