Failure to Perform Compaction in Workmanlike Manner Results In Bumpy Road

A residential subdivision was being developed in the City of Forest City. A civil engineering firm and its employee were contracted to provide surveying and planning, street and utility design, and to prepare a grading plan to establish grades and elevation on the street for the project. The defendant, a construction company, was contracted to do all of the grading, paving, and utility improvements on the project. The contract required that all services be completed in a workmanlike manner. 

All work on the project was completed by the end of 2004. In 2005, the pavement showed evidence of cracking and rising manhole boxouts. The City requested these defects be repaired, and the construction company complied. The City accepted the completion of the project and the defendant’s work at the end of 2005. 

Additional cracking and rising manhole boxouts continued to plague the project. The City brought suit against the defendant for the cost of remedying the defects in the work. The defendant cross-claimed against the civil engineering firm and its employee, alleging their defective design was the cause of the cracking. The defendant also counter-claimed against the City alleging breach of an implied-in-fact or implied-in-law contract because the construction company performed work to complete a “punch list” prior to the City’s acceptance of the project. 

Following a bench trial involving a “battle of the experts”, the court ruled in favor of the City and against the defendant. The court determined the evidence established that the defendant failed to adequately compact the soil in the utility trench, which caused the concrete to crack. Along these lines, the court held the defendant failed to prove the engineering design was defective or was the cause of the cracking issues. The court also dismissed the defendants’ claim of an implied-in-fact or implied-in-law contract against the City because no evidence was presented establishing any obligation by the City to accept the work or pay for the requested repairs prior to acceptance.

The defendants appealed. The appellate court found there was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings of facts in regard to the cause of the cracking concrete and the lack of any implied-in-fact or implied-in-law contract. The trial court’s ruling was affirmed. City of Forest City v. Holland Contracting Corp., No. 1-873/11-0782 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2012).