Gilchrist Construction Co. v. State, Department of Transportation & Development
166 So. 3d 1045
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Public works contract (Feb. 6, 2007) between DOTD and Gilchrist for I‑10 widening; Gilchrist completed early and was paid contract price plus change orders and early completion bonus totaling $76,558,550.55.
- Gilchrist filed suit (Sept. 10, 2009) seeking $5,230,672 in construction delay costs alleged to arise from DOTD’s miscalculation of embankment quantities and resulting delays; DOTD denied and asserted plan-change/compensation extinguishment defenses.
- DOTD sought leave to file a supplemental answer with a jury-trial demand and new defenses; trial court denied leave; the case proceeded to a six-day bench trial.
- After trial, the district court (Aug. 21, 2013) awarded Gilchrist $4,195,127 in delay damages; DOTD appealed via suspensive appeal.
- The central dispute was whether delay damages were proven for added embankment and lime; the CPM baseline schedule (10BL) and three impacted schedules (10EM, 10LT, 10EL) were key to proving delay; the contract provided CPM rules that governed scheduling and changes.
- The Louisiana appellate court ultimately affirmed the judgment as to delay damages but vacated and reduced the award by removing home office overhead under Eichleay, resulting in an amended judgment of $3,764,747.00 plus costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplemental answer/ jury trial denial | DOTD argues denial was reversible error | Gilchrist contends no prejudice and defenses were timely raised | No reversible error; denial affirmed |
| Summary judgment denial | DOTD asserts no delay damages exist under RS 38:2216(H) | Gilchrist argues statutory damages survive contract terms | No error; denial affirmed |
| Qualification of CPM expert Ivy | DOTD argues Ivy insufficiently qualified for CPM | Gilchrist relied on Ivy's CPM expertise despite trial court's limit | Abuse of discretion; Ivy should have been qualified as CPM expert; limited de novo review applied |
| Proof of delay damages | DOTD claims no causation between embankment overrun and delay | Gilchrist showed delay caused by DOTD actions and overruns | Gilchrist proved delay damages; impacted CPM schedules support delay finding |
| Eichleay home office overhead | Gilchrist seeks Eichleay-based home office overhead | No standby period or suspension; Eichleay not applicable | Overhead awarded under Eichleay vacated; judgment reduced accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheairs v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation and Development, 861 So.2d 536 (La. 2003) (three-part Cheairs test for expert admissibility under Daubert framework in Louisiana)
- Gaines v. Brascato, 712 So.2d 552 (La.App.2d Cir. 1998) (supplemental pleading defined; not explicit in opinion text but cited regarding standards)
- Parish Nat’l Bank v. Wilks, 923 So.2d 8 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2005) (review of denial of summary judgment on appeal from final judgment)
- Wingfield v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 835 So.2d 785 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2002) (limited de novo review framework for evidentiary exclusion errors)
- Rideau v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 970 So.2d 564 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2007) (limited de novo review guidance following evidentiary error)
- Jones v. Black, 145 So.3d 402 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2014) (Cheairs 702/Daubert framework discussion; qualifications as expert)
- JMR Construction Corp. v. United States, 117 Fed.Cl. 436 (2014) (discussion of Eichleay overhead prerequisites and standby concepts)
- Harbor Construction Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 69 So.3d 498 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2011) (context for construction damages and scheduling evidence)