CH2M Hill Southeast, Inc. v. Pinellas County

• Decision Date: 20 June 1997
• Docket Number: No. 95-02932,95-02932
• Citation: 698 So.2d 1238
• Parties: 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1500 CH2M HILL SOUTHEAST, INC., Appellant, v. PINELLAS COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1238

698 So.2d 1238

22 Fla. L. Weekly D1500

CH2M HILL SOUTHEAST, INC., Appellant, v. PINELLAS COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.

No. 95-02932.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Second District.

June 20, 1997.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 10, 1997.

Arthur J. England, Jr., Charles M. Auslander and John G. Crabtree of Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A., Miami; Benjamin H. Hill, III, David T. Knight and Robert B. Gough, III, of Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Michael J. Keane, Shirin M. Vesely, and Richard S. Maselli of Keane & Reese, P.A.; Sarah M. Chaves of Ostow & Chaves, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellee.

QUINCE, Judge.

CH2M Hill Southeast, Inc. (Hill) appeals a final judgment in favor of Pinellas County, Florida (the County) alleging, inter alia, that the County failed to establish Hill's breach of the applicable standard of care for professional engineers in 1977. Because we disagree, we affirm the judgment in favor of the County. However, we reverse the award of prejudgment interest on $10,000,000.00 awarded to replace the County's ailing pipeline because this figure does not represent out-of-pocket expenditures by the County. On all other issues raised, we affirm without further comment.

In March 1975 the County hired Hill to design a 13.5 mile, 60-inch, water-bearing pipeline. Hill had, since the 1960s, been the exclusive engineers for Pinellas County, and had designed most of the County's water system. Hill's design specifications for this project called for the pipe to be manufactured in conformity with a national standard adopted by the American Water Works Association (AWWA). The AWWA standard to be used for this project was C301.

Interpace Corporation (Interpace), a concrete pipe manufacturer, submitted a bid and proposal to the County and to Hill. In its proposal, Interpace indicated its intent to use "class IV" prestressed wire to manufacture pipe segments for the project. AWWA specification C301 required that "class II" wire or any wire of "higher tensile strength" be used to manufacture the pipe. Hill had worked with Interpace prior to the County project, and was aware that Interpace used class IV wire to manufacture pipe for other pipeline projects.

As part of its overall duties under its contract with the County, Hill prepared the project plans and specifications; reviewed bids and proposals submitted by pipe manufacturers; recommended a pipe manufacturer (Interpace); and reviewed/approved Interpace's shop drawings on the pipe materials and design--including the use of class IV wire. Based on Hill's recommendation, the County ultimately contracted with Interpace to manufacture the concrete pipe segments.

The pipeline was completed in October 1978. On November 13,1979, one segment of pipeline broke, and the County commenced an investigation. On December 5, 1980, when Robert Edmunds, an engineer hired by the County, performed a pressure test, another explosion occurred. The pipeline ruptured for a third time in May 1991, and for a fourth time over the Thanksgiving weekend in 1994. All of these ruptures occurred at a level of pressure much less than the 210 pounds of pressure per square inch which the pipeline was designed to bear.

The first trial of this case took place without a jury and resulted in a final judgment for the County. On appeal, the first judgment was reversed and remanded for retrial. This court indicated that an issue to be tried on remand was whether Hill breached its contractual design responsibilities by allowing Interpace to use class IV wire for the pipeline. See CH2M Hill Southeast, Inc. v. Pinellas County, 598 So.2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 613 So.2d 7 (Fla.1992). On remand, the County argued that the breach of contractual responsibilities issue, as stated in the Second District opinion, was not the sole issue to be tried. The trial court entered an order limiting retrial to that sole issue, and this court affirmed that decision in Pinellas County v. CH2M Hill Southeast, Inc., 638 So.2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 824, 115 S.Ct. 90, 130 L.Ed.2d 41 (1994).

In the current appeal, Hill argues that the County failed to produce sufficient, competent evidence to allow the jury to conclude that Hill breached the applicable standard of care. Our review of the record indicates there was substantial, competent evidence to support the jury's conclusion that Hill breached the engineering standard of care and therefore breached its contractual duties to Pinellas County. See GNB, Inc. v. United Danco Batteries, Inc., 627 So.2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)(function of appellate court is not to reweigh evidence but to view the record to determine if it contains competent and substantial evidence to support conclusions of the trier of fact).

Three engineering experts testified at trial, Dink Henderson, Hill's chief design engineer for this project; Robert Edmunds, the County's expert; and Wayne Brunzell, Hill's trial expert. These experts testified that it was the design engineer's responsibility to review and approve Interpace's proposal for the pipe's materials, design and production. Under the then existing standard of care, Interpace's proposal should have been reviewed to ensure that the design, materials and ultimate product conformed with project specifications and AWWA standards. The County's expert testified that if Interpace's proposal did not conform to project specifications, or AWWA standards, it was the responsibility of Hill's design engineer to discuss any inconsistencies with Interpace and/or request that proposed materials be tested. All three engineers opined that if the Interpace proposal differed from project plans and specifications, it should have been rejected, not approved.

Henderson testified that he checked the Interpace drawings and descriptive data which cited specification A-648-73 and class IV wire, rather than the AWWA specification C301 as called for in the project plan. He admitted he did not conduct any research on class IV wire, and that he could not remember how he reconciled the two different specifications....