Osceola County Rural Water System, Inc. v. Subsurfco, Inc.

Citation914 F.2d 1072
Decision Date25 October 1990
Docket Number89-1899,Nos. 89-1857,s. 89-1857
PartiesOSCEOLA COUNTY RURAL WATER SYSTEM, INC., Appellee, v. SUBSURFCO, INC., Appellant. Rode Construction Company and Sheesley Plumbing and Heating Co., Inc. OSCEOLA COUNTY RURAL WATER SYSTEM, INC., Appellee, v. SUBSURFCO, INC. Rode Construction Company and Sheesley Plumbing and Heating Co., Inc., Appellants.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

Philip L. Bruner, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.

Jack G. Marcil, Fargo, N.D., for appellee.

Before WOLLMAN and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and WATERS, * District Judge.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Subsurfco, Inc. (Subsurfco) and its subcontractors, Rode Construction Company and Sheesley Plumbing and Heating Co., Inc., appeal from the district court's order setting aside an arbitration award. We reverse.

I. Background

Osceola County Rural Water System, Inc. (Osceola) is a nonprofit corporation organized to build and operate a rural water system. Subsurfco is a Nebraska corporation engaged in the construction business. In 1981, Osceola entered into a $7.2 million contract with Subsurfco for the construction of a 680-mile rural water distribution system in northwest Iowa. Subsurfco in turn entered into contracts with the subcontractors for the construction of the water line.

Work commenced on the water line in April 1981. The contract provided that the primary method of installing the pipe was by use of the open trench method, utilizing equipment that would dig a trench to the desired depth and to a width sufficient to allow personnel to lay the pipe at the bottom of the trench. Subsurfco soon experienced difficulties with the open trench method when it encountered substantial areas of unstable soils, widespread presence of boulders, and high ground water levels, all of which made it impracticable or impossible to continue with the open trench procedure. Work was slowed, and by mid-June 1981 Subsurfco was 78 miles behind schedule. To overcome these installation problems, Subsurfco, with Osceola's permission, began using the "plow-in" method of laying the pipe, utilizing a large-shanked machine drawn by several crawler tractors. This procedure required the pipe sections to be joined by the use of glue rather than by rubber gaskets, as was the case with the pipe laid by the open trench method.

The majority of the construction was completed in 1981, and the system was put into operation by agreement of the parties in July and August of 1982. Thereafter, Subsurfco continued to work on the system. In December 1982, the parties executed Change Order 13, under which liquidated damages in the amount of $100,000 were assessed against Subsurfco and the contract price reduced accordingly.

On September 6, 1983, Osceola terminated the contract for Subsurfco's failure to complete the project. In April 1985, Osceola brought a lawsuit against Subsurfco and its subcontractors in Iowa state court. In May 1985, Subsurfco filed a demand for arbitration under the arbitration clause of the contract, claiming some $3 million in damages against Osceola. In turn, Osceola filed a claim for approximately $7 million against Subsurfco and the subcontractors as damages resulting from defective workmanship, faulty materials, untested line, and excessive water loss.

Osceola's principal complaints about the work done by Subsurfco and the subcontractors concerned the excessive leakage in the system (approximately 40% of the water pumped into the system) resulting from the allegedly faulty gluing of the pipe joints. Subsurfco countered these allegations by arguing that the problems it had experienced in installing the pipe were the result of Osceola's inadequate investigation of the soil and water conditions that would be encountered and its inadequate design of a pipeline system to meet such conditions.

The arbitrators found that Subsurfco had substantially completed its work at the time Change Order 13 was executed. The arbitrators also found, among other things, that the pipeline had been installed in accordance with Osceola's design specifications and that Osceola had assumed the responsibility for and the risk of the results of those design specifications, including the risk of the excessive water loss condition that resulted. The arbitrators concluded that Subsurfco was entitled to a net claim of $286,655. This amount represented the balance of the unpaid contract price of $344,619, plus interest on excessive retainage withholdings in the amount of $79,636, less set-offs to Osceola in the amount of $137,600.

Osceola brought an action in Iowa state court to set aside the arbitrators' award. Following removal of the case to federal court, the district court vacated the award. The district court found that the arbitrators had ignored the plain language of the contract and exceeded their powers when they ignored key provisions in the contract and Iowa case law. The district court also found that the award violated public policy because the arbitrators ignored the testimony of two of Subsurfco's former employees that they had been ordered by Subsurfco's project engineer to falsify the results of pressure testing on sections of the water line.

II. Discussion

The Federal Arbitration Act sets forth the grounds for vacating arbitration awards. An award may be set aside:

(a) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.

(b) Where there was evident partiality...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Steichen v. Weber, 24844.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • January 21, 2009
    ... ... critical to the ability of the adversarial system to produce just results." Id. at 685, 104 S.Ct ... ...
  • Bob Schultz Motors v. Kawasaki Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • July 1, 2003
    ...modify, or vacate an arbitrator's award owes the arbitrator's decision great deference. See, e.g., Osceola County Rural Water Sys. v. Subsurfco, Inc., 914 F.2d 1072, 1075 (8th Cir.1990). Thus, the Federal Arbitration Act provides that a district court can vacate an arbitration award only in......
  • U.S. Postal Serv. v. Am. Postal Workers Union
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • November 27, 2012
    ...Mo. River Servs., Inc. v. Omaha Tribe of Neb., 267 F.3d 848, 855 (8th Cir.2001) (quoting Osceola Cnty. Rural Water Sys., Inc. v. Subsurfco, Inc., 914 F.2d 1072, 1075 (8th Cir.1990)); accord, e.g., Misco, 484 U.S. at 38, 108 S.Ct. 364 (“[T]he arbitrator may not ignore the plain language of t......
  • Parker v. Cartledge
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • June 10, 2015
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Agreements to expand the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 63 No. 1, September 1999
    • September 22, 1999
    ...thus mandated the enforcement of arbitration agreements." Id. (8) See, e.g., Osceola County Rural Water Sys., Inc. v. Subsurfco, Inc., 914 F.2d 1072, 1075 (8th Cir. 1990) (asserting "judicial review of arbitration awards is narrow in scope"); Antwine v. Prudential Bache Sec., Inc., 899 F.2d......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT