Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Leo A. Daly Co.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. C 4-92-CV-90215.,C 4-92-CV-90215. |
| Citation | 870 F. Supp. 925 |
| Parties | AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. LEO A. DALY COMPANY, Defendant. LEO A. DALY COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. The WEITZ COMPANY, INC., Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Joseph A. Happe, of Huber, Kelley, Book, Cortese & Happe, Des Moines, IA, for defendant/third-party plaintiff Leo A. Daly Co.
Brenton D. Soderstrum, of Shearer, Templer, Pingel & Kaplan, West Des Moines, IA, for third-party defendant Weitz Co.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .................................... 928
II. FINDINGS OF FACT ......................................... 929
A. The Incident .......................................... 929
B. Contract Provisions And Roles Of The Parties .......... 929
C. The Design And Construction Process ................... 931
D. Post-Incident Condition ............................... 933
E. Expert Testimony ...................................... 933
III. ANALYSIS ................................................. 934
A. Elements Of A Negligence Cause Of Action .............. 934
B. Duty .................................................. 936
1. Duty To Provide Adequate Designs ................... 936
2. Duty To Supervise Or Inspect ....................... 938
3. Duty To Instruct ................................... 938
4. Duty To Build Adequately ........................... 939
C. Causation ............................................. 939
IV. CONCLUSION ............................................... 941
Plaintiff insurer of racetrack facilities brought this lawsuit against the defendant architect who designed the racetrack facilities for damages caused to the racetrack grandstand clubhouse when fire sprinkler pipes froze and burst. The racetrack declined to join in the lawsuit brought by its insurer. Defendant architect filed a third-party complaint for contribution against the construction company that had served as construction manager and general contractor for the building of the racetrack facilities. The insurer amended its complaint to add claims against the construction company. The construction company raised affirmative defenses asserting the liability of the architect for any damages to the insurer. On the eve of trial, the insurer settled its claims against the architect and construction company. The construction company then filed a cross-claim for contribution against the architect. The matter proceeded to trial before the court on the issues of the comparative fault of the architect and construction company in order properly to apportion the settlement with the insurer.
Plaintiff Aetna Casualty and Surety Company originally filed this lawsuit on March 23, 1992, following damage to the grandstand clubhouse of its insured Racing Association of Central Iowa (RACI) at the Prairie Meadows racetrack caused by fire sprinkler pipes that froze and burst. RACI declined to join in the lawsuit. Aetna's lawsuit originally named as defendant the Leo A. Daly Company (Daly), the architect for the design of facilities at Prairie Meadows. Aetna's complaint alleged breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence. On January 4, 1993, Daly filed a third-party complaint against the Weitz Company, Inc. (Weitz), which had been the construction manager and general contractor for construction of the Prairie Meadows facilities. Daly's complaint against Weitz included claims of breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence, and essentially sought contribution from Weitz on Aetna's claims. Weitz responded with denials and affirmative defenses, asserting Daly's liability for any injury to Aetna's insured. On August 17, 1993, Aetna amended its complaint to add claims against Weitz.
On the eve of trial, Aetna settled its claims against both Weitz and Daly for $50,000. Weitz and Daly each paid half of the settlement. On May 10, 1994, Weitz filed a cross-claim against Daly for contribution. Weitz and Daly proceeded to trial before the court for a determination of the comparative fault of these parties on Aetna's negligence claims in order to apportion the settlement amount between them. Trial to the court took place on May 24 and 25, 1994.1 The parties submitted various trial and post-trial briefs, and the court concludes that this matter is fully submitted.
On the night of December 21, 1989, fire sprinkler pipes in three of the grandstand clubhouse viewing areas of the RACI facility at Prairie Meadows froze and burst, causing extensive water damage to several floors of the grandstand building. The sprinkler pipes were concealed above the vaulted ceiling in the clubhouse viewing areas. Air was intended to circulate through the enclosed ceiling space as part of the air circulation system and to prevent the sprinkler pipes from freezing. To accommodate air circulation through the enclosed ceiling space, each vaulted roof had vents near its peak, and vents on the bottom, horizontal surface of the ceiling near the perimeter of the room. Some of the warm air from the air supply ducts of the heating and air conditioning system was also intended to be forced into the enclosed ceiling space during heating season from extensions of the ductwork, warming the enclosed ceiling space and percolating through the various ceiling vents. Earlier in the evening on December 21, 1989, however, guests at a party had complained that cold air was coming out of the horizontal ceiling vents around the perimeter of the room. Weather records for that date indicate that a stiff wind was blowing from the north-northwest. The temperature in the enclosed ceiling space eventually fell so low that the fire sprinkler pipes froze, causing them to burst, with resulting water damage to the Prairie Meadows clubhouse.
Following the bursting of these pipes, and before any inspection could take place, clean-up crews cut various holes in the walls and ceiling of the clubhouse, removed sheets of wet insulation, caused other damage, and generally obscured the prevailing conditions in the enclosed ceiling space at the time of the incident.
The parties involved in the construction of the Prairie Meadows facilities operated under two bi-lateral contracts. One contract, hereinafter "the Architect's Contract," Exhibit 56, was between RACI and Daly. The other, hereinafter "the Construction Manager's Contract," Exhibit 57, was between RACI and Weitz, who was employed as the construction manager for the project, and who decided also to act as the general contractor. The Architect's Contract was a slight modification of a standard form contract provided by the American Institute of Architects, AIA Document B141/CM, entitled "Construction Management Edition Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect." Under this version of the contract, and hence this arrangement of the relationship among the parties, and because the Prairie Meadows project was a "fast track" project, as discussed further below, the architect did not bear the entire burden of design for the project under construction. Part of that burden was borne by the construction manager, who managed the construction project on site. The architect's inspection duties were also limited under the contract. The provisions of the contracts pertinent to the resolution of this matter are presented below.
In the Architect's Contract, Exhibit 56, Daly's design obligations are stated for each phase of the project. Daly had general design responsibilities in the pre-construction phases of the project, but the present lawsuit concerns Daly's responsibilities to review and approve design substitutions during the construction phase. The contract provisions pertaining to Daly's duties concerning suggested design substitutions are as follows:
Upon the owner's request, Daly was required to provide further design services and was entitled to additional compensation for such services pursuant to section 1.7. Those additional design services...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanna v. United Omaha Life Ins. Co.
...factor in producing damage when the damage would not have happened except for the conduct. See Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Leo A. Daly Co., 870 F.Supp. 925, 936 (S.D.Iowa 1994) (applying Iowa law and citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which uses the "substantial factor" test to help det......
-
Godfrey v. State
...“ ‘I was never ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one.’ ” Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Leo A. Daly Co., 870 F.Supp. 925, 941 (S.D.Iowa 1994). Until today, our public officials sued personally for doing their jobs could quickly avoid the cost of defending the suit ......
-
Slaton v. Climax Molybdenum Co.
...third party, lay down his own rules as to when he will be liable to those whom his negligence injures." Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Leo A. Daly Co. , 870 F.Supp. 925, 937 (S.D. Iowa 1994) (quoting Evans v. Howard R. Green Co. , 231 N.W.2d 907, 912 (Iowa 1975) ).Finally, and similarly, the Co......