Worthen Bank and Trust Co., Nat. Ass'n v. Silvercool Service Co., 81CA0586
| Decision Date | 02 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 81CA0586,81CA0586 |
| Citation | 687 P.2d 464 |
| Parties | WORTHEN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and Hairshaft, Inc., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SILVERCOOL SERVICE COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, Defendant-Appellant. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Wagner & Wyers, Carl A. Wyers, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Radosevich & Stokes, Charles M. Radosevich, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Plaintiffs, Worthen Bank and Hairshaft, sought damages for faulty construction of a roof by defendant, Silvercool, on a building owned by Worthen Bank as trustee and leased by Hairshaft. The trial court found that Silvercool's construction of the roof had been negligent and in breach of the implied warranties of good workmanship. Silvercool appeals, arguing (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the findings, (2) that the amount of damages awarded was unreasonable, exceeded the amount prayed for, included excessive expert's fees, and was arrived at through application of an improper measure, and (3) that certain evidence was improperly admitted. We affirm.
When the existing roof began to leak, Worthen Bank employed Silvercool to install a "built-up" roof which involved scraping the gravel off the existing roof, placing a felt layer on the roof, placing asphalt over the felt layer, and placing gravel over that. In this procedure, the original roof is not removed, the new roof is merely constructed over the existing one. The price for this procedure was $5,247.
Silvercool issued its standard guarantee against water leakage caused by faulty workmanship or material or ordinary wear and tear from the elements. Both during and after the installation of the roof, leakage of tar from the roof caused damage to ceilings, walls, carpets, and other items belonging to Hairshaft inside the building as well as to the outside of the building.
Worthen Bank employed a consultant, William Woolford, to determine whether the workmanship and materials used had met the consumer standards in the Denver area, and to recommend the course of action to repair the damage done. Woolford reported that the roof did not conform to the standards of roofing practice in the Denver area and that the roof should be removed and replaced. He indicated that it was not possible to repair the existing roof, and that the Denver Building Code prohibited the placing of a third roof on top of the two existing roofs. On Worthen Bank's behalf, Woolford obtained a proposal to replace the roof, accepted the proposal, and supervised the installation of the new roof. This action for negligence and breach of warranty ensued.
The trial court's finding of negligence, based on the testimony of the expert witness Woolford, was fully supported by the record. Silvercool argues that the expert's testimony was contradictory and inconsistent with the testimony of other witnesses and is therefore unworthy of belief. The argument lacks merit. It is for the trial court to draw inferences and to reach conclusions based on the evidence presented and to assess the credibility of witnesses. Adler v. Adler, 167 Colo. 145, 445 P.2d 906 (1968); Vigil v. Pacheco, 95 Colo. 405, 36 P.2d 766 (1934). Since there was evidence here to support the finding, it will not be disturbed on review. Page v. Clark, 197 Colo. 306, 592 P.2d 792 (1979).
In view of this conclusion, we need not reach the issues concerning breach of implied warranty.
Silvercool argues that the damages awarded were unreasonable, that the trial court erred in applying the wrong standard by which to measure the damages, that the expert's fees should not have been included in the damage award, and that the damages awarded exceeded the amount prayed for.
Silvercool's contention that the damages were unreasonable is predicated on its interpretation of the evidence, which conflicts with the findings made by the trial court. Silvercool argues that the roof could have been repaired and did not need to be dismantled and then replaced, and that the unreasonableness of the price paid by Worthen Bank is indicated both by the fact that no competitive bids were sought and that the price differential between the roof installed by Silvercool and the one subsequently installed was over $17,000.
Worthen Bank's expert, Woolford, testified that the amount paid for the replacement roof was reasonable and that it was technically impossible to repair the roof installed by Silvercool. Woolford further testified that, even if it were technically possible, it could not be done economically, and that the applicable building codes prohibited adding a third roof. He also testified that it was common practice to award contracts without competitive bidding and that he considered the price contained in the proposal to be reasonable. Woolford testified in detail as to the repairs which needed to be made both in dismantling and replacing the Silvercool roof and in repairing the damage caused by the faulty installation of that roof. He also recommended that certain additional work be performed which Worthen Bank had not previously contracted for, the costs of which were not included in the bill submitted to Silvercool.
The trial court found the charges to be reasonable, and the record provides ample evidence to support those findings. Therefore, they will not be disturbed on review. Page v. Clark, supra.
Silvercool contends that the trial court erred in failing to measure damages by the difference in value between the building with the Silvercool roof and with the roof subsequently installed. Citing Campbell v. Koin, 154 Colo. 425, 391 P.2d 365 (1964) and Summit Construction Co. v. Yeager Garden Acres, Inc., 28 Colo.App. 110, 470 P.2d 870 (1970), Silvercool maintains that the trial court erred in measuring the damages by the cost of replacing the roof. Quoting 5 A. Corbin, Contracts § 1090, the court noted in Campbell v. Koin, supra:
" 'If it is made to appear that physical reconstruction and completion in accordance with the contract will involve unreasonable economic waste by destruction of usable property or otherwise, the damages awarded for the contractor's breach of contract will be measured by the difference between the market value that the structure contracted for would have had and that of the imperfect structure received by the plaintiff.' " (emphasis added)
The court held, however, that:
"Permitting the recovery of the cost or expense...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Westminster v. Centric-Jones, No. 01CA0502
...of County Comm'rs, 153 Colo. 432, 387 P.2d 266 (1963), even if they exceed the costs to repair defects. Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Silvercool Serv. Co., 687 P.2d 464 (Colo.App.1984). Nevertheless, the reasonableness of rebuilding a defective structure, even to new specifications and at inc......
-
Airborne, Inc. v. Denver Air Center, Inc., 90CA2218
...would seek whatever damages were appropriate based on the evidence at trial, we perceive no error. Cf. Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Silvercool Service Co., 687 P.2d 464 (Colo.App.1984) (final judgment should be in the amount to which plaintiff is entitled and is not limited to amount specifi......
-
Bear Creek Development Corp. v. Genesee Foundation
...the discretion of the trial court. See Rullo v. Public Service Co., 163 Colo. 99, 428 P.2d 708 (1967); Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Silvercool Service Co., 687 P.2d 464 (Colo.App.1984). Here, as discussed, the trial court properly excluded impacts to individual PUD property owners from the a......
-
Colorado Mountain Properties, Inc. v. Heineman
...and to reach conclusions based on the evidence presented and to assess the credibility of witnesses. Worthen Bank & Trust v. Silvercool Service Co., 687 P.2d 464 (Colo.App.1984). We conclude that the record supports the trial court's determination that diminution, if any, of the value of de......
-
Recovering Actual Damages Under Colorado's Construction Defect Action Reform Act-part Ii
...LLP, No. 06CV713 (Adams County Dist. Ct. June 10, 2008) (discussing both). 33. See Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Silvercool Serv. Co., 687 P.2d 464, 466-67 (Colo.App. 1984) (permitting damages for replacement of defective roof with more expensive one). Cf. City of Westminster v. Centric-Jones......
-
Let the Builder-vendor Beware: Defenses and Damages in Home Builder Litigation-part Ii
...McKinley v. Willow Construction Co., Inc., 693 P.2d 1023, 1026 (Colo.App. 1984); Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Silvercool Service Co., 687 P.2d 464, 466 (Colo.App. 1984). 16. Carpenter v. Donohoe, 154 Colo. 78, 388 P.2d 399 (1964); Shiffers v. Cunningham Shepherd Building Co., 28 Colo.App. 29......
-
The Bill of Costs
...was an abuse of discretion. See also Soneff v. Harlan, 712 P.2d 1084 (Colo.App. 1985); Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Silvercool Service Co., 687 P.2d 464 (Colo.App. 1984). 29. See Perkins, supra note 25 (allowing expenses for photocopies of documents made in connection with discovery); see al......