Benjamin Medina
ASBCA No. 60289
| A.S.B.C.A. | Jul 24, 2017Background
- Lessor Benjamin Medina leased a house to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Lease No. DACA63-5-12-0384 (initial term 1 Apr 2012), with renewals extending occupancy past three years to 24 Apr 2015.
- Lease contained a restoration clause (paragraph 13) limiting government payment for restoration and excluding interior painting when the government possessed the premises three or more years; an indemnification clause (paragraph 5) excepting lessor liability for damage caused by government use but limited "under the terms of this agreement."
- Exit joint inspection (27 Apr 2015) was signed by both parties; government took exit photographs.
- Medina submitted a $9,200 claim (14 May 2015) for repairs (including $7,500 for interior painting/prep and $1,700 for Formica-to-granite counter replacement); the government’s IGE and CO awarded $1,528.32.
- Medina appealed to the ASBCA seeking the balance ($7,671.68) and later requested additional "quantum meruit" recovery for financial strain, diminished sale value, and time spent pursuing payment. Parties proceeded under Board Rule 11 (no hearing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board has jurisdiction to consider Medina's quantum meruit claims (financial strain, diminished value, time) | Medina raised these additional damages before the Board and seeks recovery for them | Government: these claims were not presented to the CO and thus are outside the Board's jurisdiction | No jurisdiction — quantum meruit claims are new and were not presented to the CO, so Board cannot entertain them |
| Whether indemnification entitles Medina to recover interior painting and prep costs | Medina: indemnification clause makes government liable for damage caused by its tenant (nails, staples, tape damage) including repainting/prep | Government: restoration clause specifically excludes interior painting after >3 years occupancy; indemnification is limited by contract terms | Painting and associated prep costs are not recoverable because restoration clause exclusion applies (lease exceeded three years) and indemnification is cabined by the restoration clause |
| Whether Medina proved entitlement to additional repair costs (doors, countertops, other items) beyond CO award | Medina: submitted contractor invoices/estimates and payments for door repairs, wall repairs, and partial counter replacement | Government: IGE, exit inspection, and photos show most doors and counters were in "good" condition; CO paid for only specific items demonstrated to exceed normal wear and tear | Held for government: Medina failed to prove damages beyond ordinary wear and tear for most items; CO’s award adequately compensated appellant |
| Evidentiary burden to show damage caused by government and exceeding ordinary wear and tear | Medina: contractor invoices and his assertions suffice to show damage and causation | Government: must be shown by preponderance, with contemporaneous documentation and photos; signed exit inspection is persuasive | Medina failed to meet burden; documentation and photos did not show requisite damage for additional recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Northrop Grumman Computing Sys., Inc. v. United States, 709 F.3d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (a valid claim presented to the contracting officer is a jurisdictional prerequisite)
- Placeway Constr. Corp. v. United States, 920 F.2d 903 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (a new claim is not based on the same operative facts and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal)
- Santa Fe Engineers, Inc. v. United States, 818 F.2d 856 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (claims materially unrelated to the original claim are not properly before the board)
- NVT Techs., Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1153 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (contract should be read as a whole to harmonize provisions)
- Servidone Constr. Corp. v. United States, 931 F.2d 860 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (claimant must prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence)
- United Pacific Ins. Co. v. United States, 497 F.2d 1402 (Ct. Cl. 1974) (specific contract language governs over conflicting general language)
Outcome: Appeal denied; ASBCA concluded CO's award was adequate and denied additional recovery, including quantum meruit and painting/prep costs.