Excel Construction, Inc. v. Town of Lovell
2011 WY 166
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- Excel contracted with the Town of Lovell on March 15, 2006 to replace water/sewer mains and connections; Excel served a January 24, 2008 Notice of Claim within statute; Exhibit A detailing damages was omitted from the initial Notice; a First Amended Notice including Exhibit A was served July 10, 2009; the Town challenged the completeness of the notice and later moved for summary judgment; the district court dismissed for lack of proper itemization and jurisdiction but Brown v. City of Casper holds that amendment may cure notice defects; the court remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the damages itemization sufficient without Exhibit A? | Excel's dollar amount is clearly stated. | Lovell contends lack of itemization due to missing Exhibit A. | Yes; itemization satisfied constitutional and statutory requirements. |
| Can a clerical error be corrected under Rule 60(a)? | Excel seeks correction for omitted Exhibit A. | Town argues for strict adherence to filing requirements. | Court did not address; not necessary to decide after finding adequate itemization. |
| Was Excel's First Amended Notice timely or properly filed? | Amendment cured defects and was timely under governing rules. | Timeliness questioned under Act as used against amendment. | Not decided on timeliness; district court jurisdiction issue discussed per Brown. |
| Was serving the Notice of Claim on the Mayor/Administrator/Attorney proper rather than the Treasurer? | Service on Mayor/Administrator/Attorney complied with requirements. | Treasurer must audit claims per statute. | Excel complied with service requirements; service to those officers was proper. |
| Did the district court lose jurisdiction over the amended complaint for Beaulieu II deficiencies? | District court retains jurisdiction to consider a properly filed motion to amend per Brown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaulieu v. Florquist, 20 P.3d 521 (Wyoming 2001) (governemental claims filing, auditing requirements; stipulates proper notice standards)
- Hladky Constr., Inc. v. City of Gillette, 196 P.3d 184 (Wyoming 2008) (itemization sufficiency focuses on total damages amount, not granular categorization)
- Madsen v. Bd. of Trustees of Mem'l Hosp. of Sweetwater Cty., 248 P.3d 1151 (Wyoming 2011) (totals and broad categories satisfy constitutional/Act itemization)
- Brown v. City of Casper, 248 P.3d 1136 (Wyoming 2011) (appointment of amendment to cure notice defects; subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Hochalter v. City of Gillette, 120 P.3d 674 (Wyoming 2005) (purpose of notice to assist budgeting; not a trap)