Jardel Enterprises, Inc. v. Triconsultants, Inc., 86CA0449
| Decision Date | 13 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86CA0449,86CA0449 |
| Parties | JARDEL ENTERPRISES, INC., a Colorado corporation, Carlos De La Rosa, and Lawrence E. Jaro, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TRICONSULTANTS, INC., a Colorado corporation; James V. Laraby; James W. Rogers; and James R. Busse, Defendants-Appellees. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Carroll, Bradley & Froede, P.C., John S. Carroll, Joan W. Froede, Westminster, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Holt and Gebow, Thomas E. Gebow, Terrence P. Murray, Denver, for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiffs, Jardel Enterprises, Inc., Carlos De La Rosa, and Lawrence E. Jaro, (owners) appeal the summary judgment entered in favor of defendants, Tri-Consultants, Inc., James V. Laraby, James W. Rogers, and James R. Busse (subcontractors). We affirm.
To consider the propriety of the summary judgment entered, we must view the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Zalnis v. Thoroughbred Datsun Car Co., 645 P.2d 292 (Colo.App.1982).
When so viewed, the record reveals the following. The owners contracted with Brooks Western Builders, Inc., (contractor) to build a fast-food restaurant. The contract included a liquidated damages provision which provided that for each day completion was delayed, the contractor would pay the owner $100 as the reasonable estimate of the owners' loss of profit.
The contractor subcontracted with the subcontractors to stake out the foundation corners and boundary lines. The subcontractors sent an unlicensed surveyor to complete the work. He misread the building plans; consequently, the building foundation was poured 20 feet too far north. This precluded an efficient drive-through lane and parking spaces in front of the restaurant.
The owners required the contractor to remove the foundation and rebuild it in the correct location resulting in a 65-day delay in opening the restaurant. The owners received $6,500 from the contractor pursuant to the liquidated damages provision.
The contractor brought an action against the subcontractors alleging they negligently staked the restaurant foundation thereby breaching their contract. That action was settled by the subcontractors' payment of $25,000 to the contractor. In exchange, the contractor released and discharged any and all causes of actions and claims against the subcontractors arising from the services the subcontractors provided to the contractor on the restaurant. The owners were not a party to that action or settlement.
Subsequently, the owners brought this action against the subcontractors alleging claims for breach of contract and negligence and sought lost profit damages caused by the delayed opening of the restaurant. The subcontractors moved for summary judgment contending that the settlement agreement and release between the contractor and the subcontractors was a valid defense to any claims made by the owners as third-party beneficiaries of the subcontract.
The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the subcontractors. It concluded that the general release entered into between the contractor and the subcontractor was an effective bar against the owners' action against the subcontractor as a third-party beneficiary of the contractor-subcontractor agreement. It determined that the owners' breach of contract and negligence claims were barred.
The owners assert the settlement agreement and release entered by the contractor and the subcontractors did not affect their right to bring this action as the third-party beneficiaries of the breached subcontract. We disagree.
A person not a party to an express contract may bring an action on the contract if the parties to the agreement intended to benefit the non-party, provided that the benefit claimed is a direct and not merely an incidental benefit of the contract. E.B. Roberts Construction Co. v. Concrete Contractors, Inc., 704 P.2d 859 (Colo.1985). However, if the third person is a creditor beneficiary, i.e., if performance of the contract satisfies an actual duty owed by one of the parties to the beneficiary, then the beneficiary's right pursuant to the contract is purely derivative of the right of the contract promisee. 2 S. Williston, Contracts §§ 356 and 397 (W. Jaeger 3rd ed. 1959).
In such circumstances, the creditor beneficiary may assert contract rights equal to but not greater than the rights of the contract promisee. The parties to the contract retain the power to discharge or modify the contractual duty to the intended beneficiary unless (1) a term of the contract provides otherwise or (2) the beneficiary, before he receives notification of the discharge or modification, materially changes his position in justifiable reliance on the promise or brings suit on it or manifests assent to it at the request of either of the parties to the contract. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 311 (1981).
Here, it is undisputed that the owners were intended creditor beneficiaries of the subcontract since the contractor owed the owners the duty to stake the foundation corners. It is also undisputed that the contractor discharged the contractual duty before the owners brought suit on it. Nevertheless, the owners maintain that they significantly altered their position in reliance on the subcontract. However, each "change of position" they assert was part of the normal progression on the restaurant project and was not related to reliance on the subcontract.
Therefore, the subcontractors and the contractor retained the power to discharge the duty to the owners. The trial court correctly concluded that the settlement agreement and release between the subcontractors and the contractor barred the owners' derivative breach of contract claim.
The owners also contend that the trial court erred by determining that the settlement agreement and release barred their negligence claim against the subcontractors. While we agree that the settlement agreement and release did not bar any claim by the owner except the derivative breach of contract claim, we conclude that the owners did not have a negligence claim against the subcontractors. A correct judgment will not be disturbed on review even though the reason for the decision may be wrong. Miller v. Mountain Valley Ambulance Service, Inc., 694 P.2d 362 (Colo.App.1984).
As a general rule, no cause of action lies in tort when purely economic damage is caused by negligent breach of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glencove Holdings, LLC v. Bloom (In re Bloom)
... ... Rose"); and Haggan Aviation, Inc. ("Haggan Aviation"), an aircraft repair company ... "first adopted" the economic loss rule in Jardel Enters., Inc. v. Triconsultants, Inc. , 770 P.2d ... ...
-
Loughridge v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
... ... corporation, and Chiles Power Supply Company, Inc., d/b/a Heatway Radiant Floors and Snowmelting, a ... the economic loss rule in Colorado); Jardel Enters., Inc. v. Triconsultants, Inc., 770 P.2d ... ...
-
United Int'l Holdings Inc v. Wharf Limited
... ... See One-O-One Enterprises, Inc. v. Caruso, 848 F.2d 1283, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1988). UIH also alleges ... incurred is the result of failure of the purpose of the contract." Jardel Enterprises, Inc. v. Triconsultants, Inc., 770 P.2d 1301, 1303 (Colo. App ... ...
-
Micale v. Bank One N.A. (Chicago)
... ... Corporation; Bank One Insurance Agency, Inc. a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Bank One NA; Bank ... , 10 P.3d 1256, 1261 (Colo.2000) (quoting Jardel Enter., Inc. v. Triconsultants, Inc., 770 P.2d ... ...
-
The Economic Loss Rule in Construction Law
...and siding did not state cause of action in negligence for purely economic losses); Jardel Enterprises, Inc. v. Triconsultants, Inc., 770 P.2d 1301 (Colo. App. 1988) (restau-rant owner could not bring negligence claim against subcontractor for lost proits resulting from delayed opening of r......
-
The Economic Loss Rule in Construction Law
...and siding did not state cause of action in negligence for purely economic losses); Jardel Enterprises, Inc. v. Triconsultants, Inc., 770 P.2d 1301 (Colo. App. 1988) (restau-rant owner could not bring negligence claim against subcontractor for lost proits resulting from delayed opening of r......
-
Rule 56 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RULINGS ON QUESTIONS OF LAW.
...(Colo. App. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1042, 109 S. Ct. 868, 102 L. Ed. 2d 991 (1989); Jardel Enters., Inc. v. Triconsultants, Inc., 770 P.2d 1301 (Colo. App. 1988); DeRubis v. Broadmoor Hotel, Inc., 772 P.2d 681 (Colo. App. 1989); Kane v. Town of Estes Park, 786 P.2d 411 (Colo. 1990); A......
-
Chapter 5 - § 5.1 • NEGLIGENCE
...Damages," 36 Colo. Law. 39 (Feb. 2007).[44] S K Peightal Eng'rs, 2015 CO 7, ¶ 22 n. 10.[45] Jardel Enters., Inc. v. Triconsultants, Inc., 770 P.2d 1301, 1304 (Colo. App. 1988) (owners of building sought lost profits — purely economic damages — with no claim of physical harm to person or pro......