Transpower Constructors, a Division of Harrison International Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross v. Grand River Dam Authority, an Oklahoma Public Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee, and Benham Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Transpower Constructors, a Division of Harrison International Corporation v. Grand River Dam Authority, an Oklahoma Public Corporation, and Benham Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
905 F.2d 1413 | Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit | 1990
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Transpower Constructors sued the Grand River Dam Authority for breach of contract and the construction manager Benham Group for negligence over a dam project. The court ruled that contractors can recover damages using reasonable estimates of losses—they don't need exact mathematical proof. The court also said indemnification clauses must be crystal clear to protect a construction manager from liability for its own negligence; vague language won't cut it.
Key Takeaways
- •You can win a damages claim with reasonable approximation of losses. You don't need perfect accounting or mathematical precision to prove what you lost.
- •Indemnification clauses only protect the other party if the language is unambiguous and explicit. Unclear or broad indemnity language won't shield them from their own negligence.
- •Construction managers can be held liable in negligence even when a contract exists. Don't assume a contract clause automatically protects the project manager from all claims.
A reasonable approximation of the loss will suffice.
Frequently Asked Question
Do I need exact numbers to prove my damages in a construction dispute?
No. Courts will accept a reasonable approximation of your losses. You don't need mathematically perfect proof of every dollar lost. However, your estimate must be based on credible evidence and reasonable methodology, not pure speculation.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.