D&M Roofing & Siding v. Distribution, Inc., 24 N.W.3d 850

Distribution, Inc. owned a warehouse damaged in a storm, and D&M Roofing and Siding, Inc. performed a free inspection and damage assessment.
The parties signed an agreement: D&M would conduct inspections, present findings to Distribution's insurer, and perform any insurer-approved repairs; the price would match the insurance claim amount.
The contract contained a "cancellation fee" clause: if Distribution did not hire D&M after insurance approval, D&M would receive a fee equal to 20% of the proceeds "for the work done by D&M."
Distribution hired another contractor; D&M sued for breach of contract (claiming at least $174,151.46 under the cancellation fee clause) and unjust enrichment.
The district court found the contract enforceable and that Distribution breached, but concluded D&M was entitled to no damages under the cancellation fee clause because no repair work was done by D&M; summary judgment was granted to Distribution on all claims.
D&M appealed, seeking other damages and contesting the contract interpretation.

Issue	D&M's Argument	Distribution's Argument	Held
Entitlement to Damages under Cancellation Fee	D&M should be paid 20% of insurance proceeds received by Distribution if not hired, regardless of actual work performed	Damages limited to 20% of insurance proceeds for work actually done by D&M; no work, no fee	Not entitled to damages; 20% of $0 is $0 because D&M did no repair work
Ability to Seek Other Contract Damages	D&M could pursue alternative damages beyond the cancellation fee, e.g., lost profits	D&M limited itself to cancellation fee damages by concession in summary judgment	D&M invited the error by conceding; cannot now pursue other damages
Ambiguity/Clerical Error in Contract	Cancellation fee clause had a typographical error that should be corrected to include "work to be done"	Contract is unambiguous; extrinsic evidence not admissible to alter clear terms	Contract is unambiguous as written; no rewriting or extrinsic evidence allowed
Recoverability of Any Damages	Denial of damages for breach of contract allows breach without consequence; sets bad precedent	No damages owed based on D&M’s own procedural and legal positions	No error; D&M did not request nominal damages or preserve broader claims

Ray Anderson, Inc. v. Buck's, Inc., 300 Neb. 434 (extrinsic evidence inadmissible to interpret unambiguous contract)
Seemann v. Seemann, 318 Neb. 643 (courts avoid interpretations rendering contract language meaningless)
City of Omaha Human Relations Dept. v. City Wide Rock & Exc. Co., 201 Neb. 405 (party cannot complain of error invited or stipulated to, even on legal issues)
Oltman v. Parde, 32 Neb. App. 725 (breach of contract entitles non-breaching party to at least nominal damages)