Strong Construction Inc. v. City of Torrington
255 P.3d 903
Wyo.2011Background
- City of Torrington sued Strong Construction for breach of contract over missing motors specifications; contract incorporated General Conditions and required submittals with motor performance data.
- Strong hired Kelly-Deines Irrigation to supply three submersible pumps and motors; submittals approved by Baker & Associates in March 2005.
- Centripro Guidelines (relating to 42–60 Hz) were allegedly provided with submittals; Hitachi motors were supplied and installed.
- In April 2005, supplier revised motor guidelines limiting to 55–60 Hz; this information allegedly was not shared with City, Baker, or Strong.
- Motors operated at limited frequencies; after failures, City replaced Hitachi motors with Pleuger motors to restore operation; district court found Strong breached the Agreement.
- District court awarded City damages equal to replacement motor costs and related losses; Strong appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Strong breached and whether damages/fees were proper | City asserts Strong failed to provide motors conforming to submittals. | Strong contends motors met contract specs (60 Hz and VFD compatible) and Centripro Guidelines were not incorporated. | Yes; district court correctly found breach and affirmed damages. |
| Whether Section 13.07 (one-year correction period) bars the claim | City's claim not barred by one-year correction period. | Strong argues warranty period bars claim. | No; 13.07 does not bar a breach-of-contract claim and applies to defects noted within one year, not to this breach claim. |
| Whether damages should be apportioned due to Baker & Associates' negligence | N/A (City seeks contractual damages). | Apportionment should reduce Strong's liability based on others' fault. | No; contract damages are all-or-nothing and not subject to fault apportionment; no statutory comparative fault applies to breach of contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mountain View/Evergreen Improvement & Service Dist. v. Casper Concrete Co., 912 P.2d 529 (Wy. 1996) (waiver/repair provisions distinguished; not controlling here)
- Phillips v. Duro-Last Roofing, 806 P.2d 834 (Wy. 1991) (comparative fault not extended to contract actions)
- Board of Education v. Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folley, 71 N.Y.2d 21, 523 N.Y.S.2d 475, 517 N.E.2d 1360 (N.Y. 1987) (statutory interpretation on intent; not about contract apportionment)
- Stop Loss Ins. Brokers, Inc. v. Brown & Toland Medical Group, 143 Cal.App.4th 1036 (Cal.App. 1st Dist. 2006) (contract damages are generally all-or-nothing; no tort-style apportionment)