Facts

In 2005, plaintiff Farwest Insulation Contracting Inc. (FIC) entered into a subcontract with Goebel Paving, Grading, & Underground Inc. (GPGU) to provide insulation at Chevron's Richmond refinery. FIC submitted a lump-sum bid to perform specific insulation work for $91,108, which was accepted. Work was to begin on June 20, 2005, and end on July 27, 2005. On Oct. 6, 2005, after the work had run over for some time, FIC requested an equitable adjustment of the contract price after multiple mobilizations and demobilizations, interferences and removal of staged materials. FIC requested an additional $84,445 but only received $21,250 as of November 2005 when work was completed. Documentation was submitted to GPGU for reimbursement of the over-run costs, which was in turn submitted to Chevron for ultimate approval.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
FIC contended that they completed significant additional work on the project due to delays caused by GPGU or others. FIC submitted documentation of letters, schedules, receipts, and labor hour records to substantiate their claim. FIC argued that GPGU cannot claim that the documentation was insufficient as GPGU submitted the claim for the entire amount of $84,445 to Chevron for reimbursement, indicating that they believed the amount to be valid. FIC denied signing a document that GPGU produced after it was sued, in discovery, that GPGU claimed was a Short Form Standard Subcontract. The document was addressed to the head union laborer at the site, and was supposedly signed by the laborer, who could not confirm or deny that he signed the document. GPGU did not produce an unsigned copy of the supposed subcontract or explain how it came to have the home address of a laborer, as opposed to the business address of FIC.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
GPGU countered that FIC signed and was bound by the written Short Form Standard Subcontract, which entitled FIC only to the amount initially agreed, $91,108. The documentation requested by GPGU on multiple occasions was untimely, did not comply with FIC's contractual obligations, and was insufficient and grossly inadequate to support FIC's claim. Notwithstanding, GPGU was able to obtain some additional compensation for FIC. GPGU was further forced to bring in an expert to authenticate FIC's signature on the Short Form Standard Subcontract, which testimony was not rebutted.

Damages

FIC sought damages in the amount of $63,195, the balance of the amount claimed for the additional work.

Result

The jury rendered a verdict for the defense. The court awarded GPGU costs and attorney fees.

Other Information

According to plaintiff's counsel, the judge refused to allow the jury to award damages in the alternative under common counts or to hear plaintiff's claim of abandonment of contract.

Deliberation

two days totaling three hours

Poll

12-0

Length

one week