Cascade Concrete Indus. v. Cent. Wash. Asphalt

• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Cooney, J.
• Docket Number: 40429-3-III
• Decision Date: 23 December 2025
• Citation: Cascade Concrete Indus. v. Cent. Wash. Asphalt, 40429-3-III (Wash. App. Dec 23, 2025)
• Parties: CASCADE CONCRETE INDUSTRIES, INC., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, Appellant, v. CENTRAL WASHINGTON ASPHALT, INC., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION; SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, BOND NO. 6425449, Respondents.

1

CASCADE CONCRETE INDUSTRIES, INC., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, Appellant, v. CENTRAL WASHINGTON ASPHALT, INC., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION; SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, BOND NO. 6425449, Respondents.

No. 40429-3-III

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3

December 23, 2025

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Cooney, J.

- Cascade Concrete Industries, Inc. (Cascade) entered into a contract with Central Washington Asphalt, Inc. (CWA), a major highway contractor, to supply sound barrier walls. The contract required CWA to pay Cascade for extra costs associated with alterations or deviations to the walls. A 1.5 percent monthly interest charge would be applied to any invoice that CWA failed to timely remit.

Cascade sued after CWA refused to pay the extra costs incurred in manufacturing the walls. A jury found CWA breached the contract and awarded Cascade $625,968.00 in damages. Thereafter, the trial court declined to award Cascade prejudgment interest and limited postjudgment interest to the statutory rate of 12 percent rather than Cascade's demand for the contract rate of 18 percent.

Cascade appeals, arguing the trial court erred in: (1) failing to award prejudgment interest at a rate of 18 percent, (2) refusing to award Cascade prejudgment interest on its liquidated claim, and (3) refusing to award Cascade the contractual postjudgment interest at the rate of 18 percent. Both parties seek attorney fees and costs on appeal. We disagree with each contention and affirm.

BACKGROUND

CWA, a contractor specializing in major highway construction projects for the state of Washington, contracted with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for a significant road construction project on State Route 17 (SR 17) near Moses Lake, Washington.

In August 2006, CWA contracted with Cascade for 4,602 lineal feet of sound absorbing barriers, called "Whisper Wall," for the SR 17 project. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 73. The contract required CWA to pay extra costs incurred by Cascade for any alteration or deviation to the walls. The contract required CWA to pay Cascade for completed work subject to a finance charge:

PAYMENT TERMS:

CSNW/[Cascade] will invoice [CWA] for completed work/materials on the 25^th day of each month. [CWA] will remit payment to CSNW/[Cascade] upon the 10^th day of the following month. Full payment will be paid within thirty (30) days of completion of the retaining wall. Late payments bear a finance charge of one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) per month.

Ex. 13 at 2.

CWA repeatedly directed Cascade to deviate from its standard method for precasting the Whisper Wall. One directive prohibited the use of accelerators in the concurring curing process, a standard component of Cascade's method for constructing the Whisper Wall. Another directive required Cascade to refrain from lifting the panels from the molds until the concrete reached 70 percent of its breaking strength, rather than the standard 50 percent. These deviations extended the curing period from 1 day to 3 increasing the total casting time from approximately 30 days to 100 days.

On March 1, 2007, Cascade's president, Rick Peterson informed CWA's president of operations, Pamp Maiers, Jr. that the changes would result in additional costs for which CWA would be responsible.

[Cascade] has redesigned the Whisper Wall' system as requested, incurring considerable cost in doing so.

. . . .

If we are required to cast without an accelerator and achieve 70% strength prior to removing the panels from the forms it would greatly increase the Whisper Wall' panel casting time, and add unnecessary cost to the project.

Ex. 52 at 1-2. The requests for alterations and deviations extended to the issue of edge picking.^[1] On October 3, 2007, Cascade formally contested CWA's rejection of its edge pick submittal. Mr. Peterson wrote to CWA:

The added work and new conditions rendered the original schedule useless together with making it impossible to complete the project at our agreed purchase order price.

. . . .

This has substantially increased our manufacturing cost and delayed our production. A preliminary completion of added cost to meet the requirements is outlined in Appendix "A". These costs should not be considered final as the work and added costs are ongoing.

Ex. 103 at 1 (emphasis added).

On January 30, 2008, Cascade sued CWA for breach of contract, damages under the Uniform Commercial Code, quantum meruit, and cardinal change. CWA filed counterclaims irrelevant to this appeal.

While construction on the project and litigation continued, on February 20, 2008, Cascade submitted a 78-page document to CWA. The first pages of the document are titled "INITIAL BID" and state "BID PRICE $1,209,432.44." Ex. 145 at 1-2. The next four pages are titled "OVERRUNS" and state "BID PRICE $1,365,052.23." Ex. 145 at 3-6. The remaining 72 pages contain hundreds of entries consisting of names of individuals and businesses, each with a corresponding dollar amount. Following project completion, Mr. Peterson prepared a comprehensive billing statement for the additional costs. However, the record contains no evidence that this final bill was ever submitted to CWA. Cascade's accountant, Dale Huffman, later conducted an audit and determined the actual cost overrun to be $902,275.86. CWA refused to pay the amount.

Cascade first asserted that the extra costs associated with CWA's requested alterations and deviations to the walls amounted to $1,365,052.23, as listed in exhibit 145. Cascade's president testified about the genesis of exhibit 145:

[DEFENSE]: Now, taking a look at the first six pages of Exhibit 145, I guess my-my main two questions are who drafted it and what's- what's its purpose?

. . . .

[PETERSON]: You know, I'm not sure who drafted it. I certainly didn't do all this typing because I'm not a typist person, but I did have input into it. And it was an estimate-a guesstimate.

. . . .

[DEFENSE]: Page 6 of [Exhibit] 145. It says 1,000,000-it's highlighted, but it says $1-

[PETERSON]: Right.

[DEFENSE]: -365,052.23. What does that number represent to you?

[PETERSON]: I can't read it on my copy.

[DEFENSE]: Okay. I'll represent to you that his shaded-in number is $1,365,052.23.

[PETERSON]: Yes.

[DEFENSE]: What does that number represent to you?

[PETERSON]: I think that was the cost overrun number. That's what it represents. This was preliminary to the final cost occurring that the auditor, CPA, accountant did when we filed the claim.

Rep. of Proc. (RP) (July 12, 2023) at 131-32.

The jury ultimately found CWA had breached the contract and awarded Cascade $625,968.00 in damages. Thereafter, Cascade successfully moved the trial court for an award of attorney fees and costs. It also moved for postjudgment interest and prejudgment interest under two theories. First, Cascade argued the jury's award should be treated as a finding that CWA was delinquent in making a payment under the terms of the contract, entitling it to interest at 18 percent per annum. Secondly, Cascade argued it was entitled to prejudgment interest because the claim was liquidated.

The trial court denied Cascade's request for prejudgment interest under the contract, ruling:

Cascade relies on Exhibit 145 to support its claim that it complied with the terms of the parties' agreement and sent CWA an "invoice" by the 25th of the month. However, the Court concurs with CWA with respect to Exhibit 145. To wit, Exhibit 145 was not an invoice, and under the terms of the party's agreement, Cascade was required to send an invoice to CWA. The sending of an invoice was a necessary predicate before a payment, or lack thereof, could be characterized as being delinquent (and thus triggering a financing charge of 18% per annum). Exhibit 145 was a summary of cost overruns with overhead and profit set forth therein, not an invoice. The Court would also note that the summary contained in Exhibit 145 was characterized at trial as nothing more than an "estimate," a "guesstimate," and "preliminary."

CP at 586-87. In ruling on a later motion for reconsideration, the court further clarified:

Cascade's delivery of Exhibit 145 to CWA did not trigger CWA's obligation to pay for additional work because the sum it named was a preliminary estimate which anticipated revision at a later date by Cascade's auditors or CPAs to produce a more exact and certain figure.

CP at 630. The court also denied Cascade's request for prejudgment interest on its purported liquidated sum:

Cascade asked the jury to return a verdict of $902,052.23. The jury returned a verdict of $625,968.00 . . . . It is impossible to know, absent juror affidavits, whether the jury landed on $625,968.00 by compromise, by using its own calculations, by deleting items, or by relying on a more subjective method. What is clear and undisputed is this-the jury did not accept Cascade's figure. It cannot be said that the jury did not exercise any opinion or discretion in reaching its award . . . . The Court also notes at least one of Cascade's witnesses testified that Cascade's March 20, 2008 "summary" was a "guesstimate," which further supports the conclusion that Cascade's claim was unliquidated.

CP at 586. The court awarded Cascade postjudgment interest at the statutory rate of 12 percent. This appeal follows.

ANALYSIS

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST UNDER THE CONTRACT

Cascade argues the court erred in denying prejudgment interest pursuant to the terms of the contract. In response, CWA claims the interest provision was not triggered because CWA was never invoiced for the extra costs. We agree with CWA.

As an initial matter, Cascade claims the issue before this court is the interpretation of the interest provision in the contract subject to de novo review. CWA agrees with this ...