 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
K & K Recycling11/14/2003
se of all of the extra cost, it assumes plaintiff's bid [or estimate] was accurately computed, and it assumes that plaintiff was not responsible for increases in cost."
The preferred method of calculating damages is the actual cost method, in which each element of extra expense incurred because of the alleged breach is added up for a total claimed amount. Courts have also allowed a jury verdict method of calculating damages, a variant on actual cost, that "allows the contractor to `present evidence of the cost of additional work to the finder of fact, including any actual cost data, accounting records, estimates by law and expert witnesses, and calculations from similar projects.' " The jury verdict method basically reflects the principle that "a contractor need not prove damages with mathematical precision, but may only recover those damages which it proves with reasonable certainty."
Seuffert contends that K&K;relied exclusively on the total cost method. He claims that K&K;s accountant arrived at K&K;s damages figures as follows: (1) he identified nineteen line items or cost areas incurred by K&K;during the whole project, such as payroll, equipment use fees, and fuel; (2) he figured K&K;s total expenses for each line item from information provided by K&K; (3) after minor adjustments, he totaled the nineteen line items to arrive at a total cost for the project of $560,837; (4) he allocated each line item into either a ten- day or twenty-day category, with the former being the project duration estimate and the latter being the assumed delay; and (5) he concluded that $213,840 should be allocated to the ten-day category and $346,997 to the twenty-day. Seuffert says this amounts to an arbitrary allocation of one-third of the total project costs to the ten-day category and two-thirds to the twenty-day category. Seuffert claims that K&K;s accountant "arbitrarily" allocated one-third of the costs for payroll, cell phone, consulting, equipment use, fuel and oil, meals, and office expense to the ten-day estimate and two-thirds to the twenty-day delay. Seuffert maintains that K&K;thus used the total cost method, just substituting time for costs and relying on an estimated time instead of an original bid.
K&K;counters that it gave evidence of its actual costs. Karl testified as to how much time K&K;spent excavating a pit, the added equipment needed, the equipment damaged, and the delays incurred - which allegedly would have been unnecessary if Seuffert's camp was not blocking the easiest route for moving the dredge. Karl testified that Seuffert's contact with government agencies delayed the start of the project by thirty days. He testified as to how many days it did take and should have taken to get the dredge out of the pit and on level ground; how many days it took to move the dredge from the pit to its final destination, how many of those days were because of Seuffert's on- site demands and how many were due to the freezing temperatures that K&K;would not have had to face if Seuffert had not delayed the start of the project; and how many days it took to build a new ramp up to the highway in order to avoid the parking lot across which In-grid Seuffert objected to moving the dredge. Karl testified about the extra labor, equipment costs, and delays incurred because of Seuffert's alleged interference. K&K;thus maintains that it specifically identified the added equipment it needed and the hourly rates for their use, as well as its daily costs to maintain a crew and equipment in Chicken. K&K;claims that back-up invoices and time records for the labor costs were in the courtroom and available. K&K;thus concludes that its claim was based on
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|