Chris Berg, Inc. v. United States

• Decision Date: 13 December 1968
• Docket Number: No. 15-65.,15-65.
• Citation: 404 F.2d 364
• Parties: CHRIS BERG, INC. v. The UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

404 F.2d 364 (1968)

CHRIS BERG, INC. v. The UNITED STATES.

No. 15-65.

United States Court of Claims.

December 13, 1968.

Stuart G. Oles, Seattle, Wash., attorney of record, for plaintiff. Allen, DeGarmo & Leedy, Seattle, Wash., of counsel.

Ray Goddard, Washington, D. C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., for defendant.

Before COWEN, Chief Judge, DURFEE, DAVIS, COLLINS, SKELTON and NICHOLS, Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This case was referred to Trial Commissioner W. Ney Evans with directions to make findings of fact and recommendations for conclusions of law under the order of reference and Rule 57(a). The commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on December 19, 1967. Exceptions to the commissioner's findings of fact were filed by plaintiff and exceptions to the commissioner's findings of fact and recommendation for conclusion of law were filed by defendant. The case has been submitted to the court on oral argument of counsel and the briefs of the parties. Since the court agrees with the commissioner's opinion, findings and recommended conclusion of law, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recover and judgment is entered for plaintiff with the amount of recovery to be determined pursuant to Rule 47(c).

OPINION OF COMMISSIONER

EVANS, Commissioner:

Plaintiff undertook a contract with the Navy (acting for the Coast Guard) to build a loran (long-range aid to navigation) station on Marcus Island, a remote atoll in the far Pacific. The contract documents represented that Marcus Island was "* * * well outside the normal typhoon zone." One damaging typhoon struck the island 3 weeks before the contract was signed, and four other typhoons occurred within the ensuing 12 months of construction. Plaintiff applied to the contracting officer for relief from its extra costs and appealed his denial of the claim to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction over a claim founded on alleged misrepresentation. Plaintiff thereupon filed suit in this court.

On the basis of the findings of ultimate fact (Findings 8 and 9) it is my opinion that plaintiff is entitled to recover.

FINDINGS OF ULTIMATE FACT

8. Plaintiff's reliance upon defendant's representations concerning weather conditions at Marcus Island was warranted,¹ and the interpretations drawn therefrom and the assumptions made by plaintiff in reliance thereon were reasonable.²

9. Defendant's representation that "Marcus Island is considered to be well outside the normal typhoon zone" was misleading, as the representatives of both the Coast Guard and...