Court: Arizona Supreme Court; June 29, 1962; Arizona; State Supreme Court
The suit concerns the liabilities of a General Contractor and two subcontractors related to construction at the Yuma Test Station in Arizona. The Electrical Contractor, Corbin-Dykes Electric Company, initially filed the suit against the General Contractor, A. W. Meyer, who then brought third-party claims against the Air Conditioning Contractor, A. E. Shepard. The court ruled in favor of the Electrical Contractor, awarding them $4,263.96 from the General Contractor, who in turn received $3,590.58 from the Air Conditioning Contractor. This adjustment occurred after the trial revealed the Air Conditioning Contractor was not responsible for certain electrical work.
The General Contractor had contracted with the federal government and subcontracted parts of the project. The Electrical Contractor's responsibilities included all electrical work and signaling systems as specified in their contract. Similarly, the Air Conditioning Contractor was tasked with sheet metal, plumbing, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, as stated in their contract. Both subcontracts contained a clause ensuring that all work would be integrated to produce a completed structure, requiring subcontractors to address any errors or omissions in plans at no extra cost unless amended by change orders.
An examination of relevant specifications indicated that certain sections did not pertain to the case, while others contained specifications for electrical work required from the Air Conditioning Contractor, particularly focusing on control and protective devices and associated wiring.
Section 22 outlines the responsibilities of the Electrical Contractor for Interior Electrical Work, specifying that the contractor must provide all necessary labor, materials, and equipment for installing complete interior wiring systems, duct systems, and electrical connections as per the specifications and drawings. A dispute arose between the Electrical Contractor and the Air Conditioning Contractor regarding responsibility for certain electrical installations related to air conditioning equipment. The Electrical Contractor claimed it was the Air Conditioning Contractor's responsibility, while the latter contended the opposite. The General Contractor directed the Electrical Contractor to undertake the work via a purchase requisition rather than the customary change order, a method deemed acceptable by the court as it did not alter the parties' rights.
The main legal issue is whether the electrical work in question falls under the specifications of Section 21 or Section 22. It was determined that while the Air Conditioning Contractor was responsible for wiring not specified on the electrical plans, the Electrical Contractor was required to handle all aspects of the complete wiring systems as outlined in Section 22. Further specifications indicate that the Electrical Contractor is also responsible for installing various control devices for motor circuits unless provided integrated with the motor equipment. After reviewing the contract documents and testimony, the court concluded that the control wiring for the air conditioning equipment was indeed the Electrical Contractor's responsibility, leading to a reversal of the judgment against the Air Conditioning Contractor, who is fully discharged.
However, the Electrical Contractor is eligible for additional compensation for extra work necessitated by changes in equipment and plans. The court could not determine the exact amount owed, necessitating a new trial to ascertain the compensation for the Electrical Contractor's claims, including for work related to a fume hood and roto-clone, which are addressed in Section 24 but lack provisions for electrical work.
The trial revealed that the Air Conditioning Contractor bore no responsibility for the equipment in question, prompting the third party plaintiff to amend his complaint to exclude any claims against them. The evidence regarding this aspect was limited, with the primary focus being the responsibility for the control wiring of the air conditioning system. The Electrical Contractor presented a work order signed by the General Contractor's superintendent, which indicated that additional wiring for the Fume Hood was necessary and not covered in the original plans and specifications. This demonstrated that the Electrical Contractor had performed extra work warranting additional compensation. Conversely, the original plans did include electrical wiring for certain equipment, which is encompassed within section 22-01 of the Interior Electrical Work specifications. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and remanded to the Superior Court of Maricopa County, directing it to enter judgment in favor of the third party defendant and to annul the judgment against defendant Meyer. The lower court is also instructed to conduct a new trial to ascertain which portions of the work constituted extra work eligible for compensation. Justices STRUCKMEYER and JENNINGS concurred.
