Board of County Commissioners v. City & County of Denver
40 P.3d 25, 2001 Colo. App. LEXIS 564, 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1606 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A liquidated damages clause is enforceable if, at the time of contracting, the anticipated damages from a breach were difficult to ascertain, the parties intended to liquidate damages in advance, and the agreed-upon amount was a reasonable estimate of the potential actual damages.
Facts:
- In 1988, the City and County of Denver (Denver) and the Board of County Commissioners of Adams County (Adams) entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to allow for the construction of Denver International Airport (DIA) on land annexed from Adams.
- Adams' primary concern during negotiations was the noise impact of the new airport on its communities.
- Under the IGA, Denver promised to operate DIA within maximum noise levels called noise exposure performance standards (NEPS), which were defined by specific grid points and a general noise contour line.
- The IGA stipulated that if Denver breached the NEPS and failed to cure the violation, it would be required to make a 'noise mitigation payment' of $500,000 for each uncured violation.
- DIA opened in 1995.
- During the airport's first year of operation, Denver committed numerous NEPS violations.
- Seven of the NEPS grid point violations and one noise contour violation were not cured in the second year, triggering the payment provisions of the IGA.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, Board of County Commissioners of Adams County et al., filed a breach of contract action against the defendant, City and County of Denver, in a Colorado trial court.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court ruled that the noise mitigation payment provision was a liquidated damages clause but determined that genuine issues of material fact existed as to its enforceability.
- Following a four-day bench trial, the trial court found the liquidated damages clause valid and enforceable.
- The trial court awarded plaintiffs $4.0 million in damages plus $1,807,218 in prejudgment interest.
- Defendant, Denver, appealed the judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a contractual provision requiring a party to make a 'noise mitigation payment' of $500,000 for each violation of specified airport noise levels an enforceable liquidated damages clause rather than an unenforceable penalty?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Hume
Yes, the contractual provision is an enforceable liquidated damages clause. To be valid, a liquidated damages clause must satisfy a three-part test: (1) at the time of contracting, damages were difficult to ascertain; (2) the parties intended to liquidate them in advance; and (3) the amount was a reasonable estimate of potential actual damages. Here, all three elements were met. First, the 50- to 100-year expected duration of the IGA made it nearly impossible to predict future damages from noise, a fact even Denver's expert conceded. Second, the evidence from the three-year negotiation between sophisticated parties, including the deliberate choice of the term 'noise mitigation payment' over 'penalty,' demonstrated a clear intent to liquidate damages. Third, given the immense difficulty in forecasting damages, the heavily negotiated $500,000 figure was a reasonable estimate at the time the contract was made, and the burden was on Denver to prove otherwise, which it failed to do. The court also rejected Denver's argument that proof of actual damages is required to enforce the clause, stating that the validity of the clause is determined based on the circumstances at the time of contracting.
Analysis:
This case affirms and applies Colorado's established three-part test for liquidated damages, reinforcing that courts will uphold such clauses when damages are uncertain and the amount is a reasonable forecast made at the time of contracting. It highlights judicial deference to agreements negotiated between sophisticated parties, placing a high burden on the breaching party to prove a clause is an unenforceable penalty. The decision clarifies that the focus is on the reasonableness of the estimate at the time of contract formation, not on the actual damages that later occur, thereby strengthening the predictability and enforceability of liquidated damages provisions in complex, long-term agreements.
