Opinion
No. 5-965 / 05-0700
Filed April 12, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Marsha M. Beckelman, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from the district court's order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing its petition to foreclose mechanic's lien. AFFIRMED.
Kevin Caster and Carrie Le Seur of Shuttleworth Ingersoll, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Robert S. Hatala of Crawford, Sullivan, Read Roemerman, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Heard by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Plaintiff T K Roofing Sheet Metal Co. (T K Roofing) appeals from the district court's order granting defendant Rockwell Collins Inc.'s (Rockwell Collins) motion for summary judgment and dismissing its petition to foreclose a mechanic's lien. T K Roofing contends it is entitled to additional compensation stemming from defective specifications warranted by Rockwell Collins. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On October 12, 2001, Rockwell Collins contracted with engineering firm Shive-Hattery to prepare plans and specifications for a roof improvement project. Based on these specifications, T K Roofing bid on the roofing contract in an open process. Other bidders took or shared core samples of the roof in making their bids. T K Roofing did not, instead relying on the specifications supplied by Shive-Hattery. T K Roofing bid the contract at $545,000, the lowest bid, and was awarded the contract.
Upon undertaking work on the roof removal, T K Roofing discovered the existing roof assembly was not lightweight insulating concrete as described in the specifications, but consisted of several inches of concrete with wire reinforcement. Removal required more work than T K Roofing anticipated, increasing equipment, disposal, and labor costs.
T K Roofing submitted a written change order, seeking compensation for the additional expenses required for the removal of the roof. Rockwell Collins approved the change order for backhoe rental and disposal of the concrete totaling $21,448, but did not approve the change order for an additional 2002 hours of labor, totaling $90,090. Rockwell Collins paid T K Roofing $566,448, reflecting the original contract price and the approved change orders.
On December 12, 2003, T K Roofing filed its mechanic's lien for the unpaid labor supplied to Rockwell Collins on the roofing contract. On January 5, 2004, T K Roofing filed its petition to foreclose on the mechanic's lien. The petition was amended in July 2004.
On September 27, 2004, Rockwell Collins filed a motion for summary judgment. On April 8, 2005, three days prior to the start of trial, the district court granted Rockwell Collins's motion. The court found T K Roofing was not entitled to relief because it did not obtain Rockwell Collins's approval for the change order. The court further found T K Roofing was not entitled to relief under an implied warranty theory.
II. Scope and Standard of Review.
We review rulings on motions for summary judgment for errors at law. Sain v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 626 N.W.2d 115, 121 (Iowa 2001). The record before the district court is reviewed to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact existed and whether the district court correctly applied the law. Id. We review the facts in the light most favorable to the party resisting the motion. McIlravy v. North River Ins. Co., 653 N.W.2d 323, 328 (Iowa 2002). The resisting party has the burden of showing a material issue of fact is in dispute. Id.
III. Analysis.
In regard to mechanic's liens, "[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to require the owner to pay a greater amount or at an earlier date than is provided in the owner's contract with the principal contractor. . . ." Iowa Code § 572.16 (2003). Rockwell Collins paid the contract price for the removal of the roof, as well as the approved change orders. Because Rockwell Collins had provided payment in full, the district court granted summary judgment. However, T K Roofing argues they are entitled to additional compensation from Rockwell Collins because Rockwell Collins had impliedly warranted the specifications provided by Shive-Hattery. We conclude no such implied warranty exists.
"Where one agrees to do for a fixed sum, a thing possible to be performed, he will not be excused or become entitled to additional compensation, because unforeseen difficulties are encountered." Midwest Dredging Co. v. McAninch Corp., 424 N.W.2d 216, 222 (Iowa 1988) (quoting United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, 136, 39 S. Ct. 59, 61, 63 L. Ed. 2d 166, 169 (1918)). However, compensation is available where there is an inability to perform the contract at all. Id. T K Roofing argues there was an implied warranty of accuracy of the specifications because it was impossible for it to perform. We disagree. T K Roofing could, and did, perform the work it contracted to perform. While the inaccuracy of the specifications caused T K Roofing to incur additional expense in the performance of the contract, the removal of the roof was possible. Accordingly, T K Roofing is not entitled to additional compensation.
We recognize that a contractor may recover where defective specifications cause a lower bid than would have otherwise been made. Ida Grove Roofing Improvement, Inc. v. City of Storm Lake, 378 N.W.2d 313, 315 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). However, "if required, the request for additional compensation must be made in writing and cannot be made after the work is complete." Id. The key to the "sufficiency of a writing as a change order is whether there was approval of additional compensation by the owner." Id. Here, a change order was required for additional compensation and the portion of the change order relating to labor was not approved. Accordingly, T K Roofing is not entitled to the additional $90,090 requested for the additional labor supplied.
Because Rockwell Collins has paid the contract price in full, we conclude the district court properly granted it summary judgment and dismissed T K Roofing's petition to foreclose on mechanic's lien.