Marcovich Land Co. v. J.J. Newberry Co.
413 N.E.2d 935 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party's contractual duty to perform is not excused under the doctrine of commercial impracticability when the event making performance more difficult was foreseeable and the contract's plain language allocated the risk of that event to that party. Increased cost alone, especially when a contract anticipates and assigns the underlying risk, does not render performance legally impracticable.
Facts:
- On September 30, 1953, Marcovich Land Corporation (landlord) and J. J. Newberry Company (tenant) entered into a 25-year commercial lease.
- Both parties were experienced real estate professionals with equal bargaining power at the time the lease was negotiated and signed.
- The lease included a 'fire clause' which stated that if the premises were 'damaged or destroyed by fire,' the Landlord would, at its own cost, 'repair, reconstruct and replace the demised premises.'
- On December 30, 1971, a fire completely destroyed the building, with approximately six years and nine months remaining on the lease term.
- The day after the fire, Newberry informed Marcovich's successors, the Marches, that it wanted the building rebuilt pursuant to the lease.
- The Marches refused to rebuild, arguing that the cost to reconstruct, estimated at over $452,000, was commercially impractical given they only received $200,000 in insurance proceeds.
- On May 9, 1972, the Marches formally notified Newberry that they would take no further action to rebuild the premises.
- On June 16, 1976, the City of East Chicago condemned the property, making future reconstruction impossible.
Procedural Posture:
- J. J. Newberry Company (plaintiff) filed a two-count complaint against the successors of Marcovich Land Corporation (defendants) in the Porter Superior Court (trial court).
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the entire action.
- Newberry (appellant) appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which reversed the dismissal in an unreported opinion and remanded the case.
- The case was transferred on a change of venue to the LaPorte Circuit Court.
- The claim for specific performance was dismissed after the city condemned the property, leaving only the claim for damages for lost profits.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Newberry for approximately $117,000 and denied the defendants' counterclaim.
- The Marches (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Indiana 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:
Does the doctrine of commercial impracticability excuse a landlord from an unambiguous lease provision requiring the landlord to rebuild a completely destroyed building when the cost to rebuild substantially exceeds the insurance proceeds received?
Opinions:
Majority - Miller, Judge
No, the doctrine of commercial impracticability does not excuse the landlord's clear contractual duty to rebuild. The court reasoned that the lease's 'fire clause' was unambiguous and its use of the phrase 'damaged or destroyed' explicitly contemplated the total destruction of the building, allocating the risk and duty to rebuild to the landlord. The defense of unconscionability failed because it is assessed at the time of contract formation, where the parties had equal bargaining power. The court also rejected the defense of absolute impossibility, as the Marches admitted they never actually attempted to secure financing and thus could not prove rebuilding was absolutely impossible. Even when considering the modern doctrine of commercial impracticability, the Marches' defense failed because the contingency (fire) was not unexpected but was explicitly anticipated and its risk was allocated by the contract itself. The increased cost of performance, while significant, was not the kind of 'extreme and unreasonable' expense required to render the contract impracticable, but rather the type of risk a fixed-price commercial contract is intended to cover.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of sanctity of contract, establishing a high threshold for invoking the defense of commercial impracticability in Indiana. It clarifies that a party cannot escape a contractual obligation simply because performance has become more expensive or resulted in a bad deal, especially when the risk was foreseeable and explicitly allocated in the agreement. The ruling signals to commercial parties that courts will strictly enforce clear risk-allocation clauses, compelling parties to either perform their obligations or pay damages for breach, rather than allowing them to shift a bargained-for risk onto the other party after the fact.
Unlock the full brief for Marcovich Land Co. v. J.J. Newberry Co.