Installer and Owner Sue Each Other for Damage
Amber Well Drilling, LLC sued Robert Diegelman for breach of contract and sought the unpaid balance for services in connection with the parties’ contract providing for the installation by Amber of a new well and pump system on Diegelman’s property. Diegelman answered and asserted a counterclaim alleging that the well was actually installed on his neighbors’ property and that, as a result, he was required to purchase the parcel containing the well from his neighbors. The counterclaim sought reimbursement for the money spent by Diegelman for the purchase of that parcel.
The evidence presented at the bench trial in this case established that, although Diegelman provided Amber with a survey of his property, the parties never met to discuss the exact location where the well would be installed, nor did the contract specify the exact location where the well would be installed. Diegelman made two payments to Amber for its services, but after purchasing the parcel containing the well from his neighbors, declined to make full payment to Amber. Following the bench trial, Supreme Court awarded Diegelman $1,456.00, which the court determined was the difference between the cost to him of buying the land where the well was installed, i.e., $6,975.00, and the amount due to Amber under the contract, i.e., $5,549.00. Amber appealed.
The appellate court concluded that the trial court properly determined that Amber breached the contract. The contract required that Amber install a new well on Diegelman’s property, and Diegelman provided Amber with a survey for that purpose. Amber thus breached the contract when it failed to place the well on Diegelman’s property. And Diegelman was properly awarded damages on his counterclaim representing the difference between the cost to him of buying the land where the well was installed and the amount due to Amber under the contract. Damages awarded in a breach of contract action should place a party in the same position as it would have been if the agreement had not been violated. But the trial court made a mathematical error in calculating the damges, and the order was modified by reducing the award of damages to Diegelman to $1,426.00.