United States v. Brimhall-Palmer Construction, Inc.

Good Law
62 F. App'x 141
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 27, 2003No. 01-17259California778 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

H. Angelo & Company (Angelo), subcontractor on an employee-housing construction project at Grand Canyon National Park, appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the general contrac *142 tor, Brimhall-Palmer Construction, Inc. (Brimhall), and its surety, St. Paul Insurance Company (St.Paul). We affirm.

Angelo’s appeal turns on whether it adduced sufficient evidence of the amount of damages to survive summary judgment. Our review is de novo, so it does not matter whether the district court was “misled” by exclusion of Angelo’s expert or overlooked a Rule 26 disclosure identifying Henry Angelo as a witness, as Angelo contends. Instead, we focus on the heart of Angelo’s position that it provided enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact about damages.

I

Angelo argues that its damages may be determined by the total cost method. In Angelo’s view, damages calculated under this method do not depend on the claims prepared by its consultant, George Frank, but rather are supported by Henry Angelo’s affidavit. It believes that the Henry Angelo affidavit creates a genuine issue of material fact as to total cost damages.

The total cost method…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.