Employers Insurance v. St. Clair Contractors, Inc.

223 F. App'x 644
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 28, 2007·No. No. 05-35432·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

The City of McCall appeals a jury’s verdict that it breached a contract with a construction company and the corresponding damages award, as well as the attorney’s fees awarded by the district court. We affirm.

[646] 1. Jury Instructions.

There was no error in Instruction 3 or 3A. Idaho recognizes the theory of substantial performance.1 The district court adequately distinguished this term and the term substantial completion in the contract. St. Clair did not need to substantially complete by the date set in the contract in order to claim substantial performance because the contract provided for the possibility of extensions.

There was no error in Instruction 22. Idaho law approves the giving of a futility instruction.2 Given the evidence of the City’s decision that it would not allow any further requests for time extensions, it was appropriate to instruct the jury on futility where St. Clair was in part arguing that it was futile to ask for any further extensions.

At trial, the City did not object to Instruction 7A based on its lack of guidance as to how to calculate damages. And Instruction 7A, which is patterned on the model Idaho instructions,3 is not plainly erroneous;4 it provides sufficient guidance to find damages consistent with Idaho law.5

Even if one of these instructions were erroneous, the error would be harmless. Which party breached, and how much damage it caused, was fairly put before the jury and the instruction as a whole fairly informed the jury how to decide the matter.6

2. Damages.

The evidence was sufficient to justify the jury’s award. The testimony of Randall St. Clair, together with the documentary evidence of the company’s financial position before, during, and after the events at issue, showed a close enough connection between the City’s termination of the contract, St. Clair’s loss of bonding ability, and the economic losses subsequently suffered to justify the jury in finding that St. Clair’s losses were proximately caused by the City’s breach. The same evidence also justified the jury in finding the business devastation damages proved with reasonable certainty. This is all Idaho law requires.7

3. Attorney’s Fees.

The court found that the hours expended, and the hourly rate charged, by the prevailing parties’ attorneys were reasonable. This finding was sufficient to justify the lodestar award.8 And the [647] judge’s decision to make the City principally liable for Wausau’s attorney’s fee (St. Clair only pays if the City cannot) was also reasonable given the roles of each party.

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Employers Insurance v. St. Clair Contractors, Inc., 223 F. App'x 644 (9th Cir. 2007).

223 F. App'x 644 (Employers Insurance v. St. Clair Contractors, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gates v. Deukmejian
987 F.2d 1392 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Tentinger v. McPheters
977 P.2d 234 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1999)
Sullivan v. Bullock
864 P.2d 184 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1993)
Magic Valley Truck Brokers, Inc. v. Meyer
982 P.2d 945 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1999)