American Continental Life Insurance v. Ranier Construction Co.
607 P.2d 372, 125 Ariz. 53 (1980)
Rule of Law:
A contractor's failure to satisfy an express condition precedent, such as obtaining an architect's final certificate of payment, bars recovery on the contract, and a party's waiver of some contractual rights does not automatically waive other, unrelated substantive rights.
Facts:
- American Continental Life Insurance Co. (American) contracted with Ranier Construction Co., Inc. (Ranier) to construct a building for a fixed price.
- The contract specified that American's obligation to make the final payment was conditioned on Ranier first obtaining a 'final Certificate for Payment' from the project architect.
- During the project, the parties handled certain matters informally, such as not always executing signed change orders or formal extensions of time.
- The architect issued a 'certificate of substantial completion,' indicating the building was usable, but Ranier admitted it never applied for or received the required 'final Certificate for Payment.'
- American refused to make the final payment, citing Ranier's failure to complete the building according to specifications and its failure to procure the required final certificate.
- Ranier acknowledged that obtaining the certificate was its responsibility under the contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Ranier Construction Co. sued American Continental Life Insurance Co. in a state trial court for breach of contract.
- American counterclaimed against Ranier for breach of contract and negligence.
- At the close of Ranier's case and again at the close of all evidence, American moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Ranier for $130,000 and a separate verdict for American on its counterclaim for $10,000.
- The trial judge ruled that neither party could recover attorney's fees.
- American, as the appellant, appealed the judgment in favor of Ranier to the state's highest court.
- Ranier, as the appellee and cross-appellant, cross-appealed the trial court's refusal to award it attorney's fees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contractor's failure to obtain a contractually required final certificate of payment from an architect bar its right to recover the final payment, even if the owner previously waived other, unrelated contract formalities?
Opinions:
Majority - Gordon, Justice
Yes. A contractor's failure to fulfill an express condition precedent, such as obtaining an architect's final certificate, bars recovery on the contract. The requirement of a final certificate for payment is a major substantive right of the owner, not mere 'procedural chaff,' because it serves as the primary incentive for the contractor to complete the work in full compliance with the plans and specifications. The waiver of one right under a contract, such as the formal signing of change orders, does not constitute a waiver of other, unrelated rights, especially a critical condition for final payment. There was no evidence that American ever disregarded the contractual terms related to payments, so no waiver of this specific condition could be inferred from its conduct. Furthermore, American’s actions did not prevent Ranier from seeking the certificate from the architect, nor would doing so have been a futile act.
Dissenting - Struckmeyer, Chief Justice
No. The doctrine of substantial performance should allow recovery when the owner has repudiated the contract and taken possession of the substantially completed building, making the condition precedent moot. American's conduct, including its refusal to pay and its interference on the job site, amounted to an anticipatory breach of the contract, which excused Ranier from fulfilling the remaining condition. Since American has taken possession of and is using the building, it has received the benefit of Ranier's labor and materials. To deny Ranier any recovery results in the unjust enrichment of American and is a gross miscarriage of justice, especially after a jury properly weighed the claims and determined the value of the work performed against the cost of defects.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle of strict compliance with express conditions precedent in contracts, particularly in the construction industry. It clarifies that the doctrine of waiver is specific and will not be broadly applied; a party's flexibility on some contractual formalities does not nullify its right to enforce other, more substantive terms. The ruling prioritizes the explicit language of the contract over equitable doctrines like substantial performance when a key condition is not met. This holding puts contractors on notice that they must diligently satisfy all contractual prerequisites for payment, as courts are unlikely to excuse non-compliance even if other aspects of the project were managed informally.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: American Continental Life Insurance v. Ranier Construction Co. (1980)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"