MasTec North America, Inc. v. El Paso Field Services, LP (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.]
Jul. 23, 2009)(Higley) (oil and gas industry law, pipeline replacement, breach of contract, JNOV reversed,
entry of judgment on jury verdict ordered)
REVERSE TC JUDGMENT AND REMAND CASE TO TC FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS:
Opinion by Justice Higley   
We conclude that the trial court erred by granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict
on MasTec’s breach of contract claim. We reverse the trial court’s judgment as to this
claim and remand for entry of judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict and for the
assessment of attorney’s fees in favor of MasTec.
Before Justices Jennings, Keyes and Higley  
01-07-00319-CV   MasTec North America, Inc. and Mastec, Inc. v. El Paso Field Services, L.P. and Gulfterra
South Texas, L.P. f/n/a El Paso South Texas, L.P.   Appeal from 334th District Court of Harris County
OPINION DISSENTING TO THE COURT'S JUDGMENT: Dissenting Opinion by Justice Jennings  

Opinion issued July 23, 2009

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-07-00319-CV

MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC. AND MASTEC, INC., Appellants

V.

EL PASO FIELD SERVICES, L.P. AND GULFTERRA SOUTH TEXAS, L.P. F/K/A EL PASO SOUTH TEXAS, L.
P., Appellees

On Appeal from the 334th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2004-39579

O P I N I O N

This is a breach of contract dispute brought by appellants, MasTec North America, Inc., and Mastec, Inc.
(collectively, “MasTec”), against appellees, El Paso Field Services, L.P. and Gulfterra South Texas, L.P., f/k/a
El Paso South Texas, L.P. (collectively, “El Paso”). El Paso engaged MasTec to replace a butane pipeline for
a lump sum of $3.6 million, known as the “Butane Shuttle Replacement Project” (“Project”). MasTec submitted
its bid on the Project based on information in El Paso’s bid package, which included, inter alia, the “Station
and Land Pipeline Construction Contract” (“Contract”) and El Paso’s specifications, which were incorporated
into the Contact. In the Contract specifications, El Paso asserted that it used due diligence in locating any
“foreign crossings” [Footnote] in the pipeline right-of-way and that there were 280 such crossings. During
construction, however, MasTec encountered 794 foreign crossings, which required additional construction
measures and increased its costs substantially. MasTec sued El Paso to recoup the additional expenses.

A jury found that El Paso breached the due diligence provision of the Contract specifications and awarded
$4,763,890 in damages to MasTec. Subsequently, on the motion of El Paso, the trial court granted judgment
notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) in favor of El Paso, concluding that the lump-sum provisions of the
Contract allocated the risk of unidentified foreign crossings to MasTec and holding that MasTec take nothing
by its claims. MasTec appeals.

In its sole issue, MasTec contends that the trial court erred by granting JNOV in favor of El Paso because the
trial court’s interpretation of the Contract improperly rendered the due diligence provision a nullity and shifted
the risk of costs associated with unidentified foreign crossings to MasTec. In the alternative, MasTec contends
that (a) the Contract is ambiguous and must be strictly construed against El Paso, or (b) that MasTec is
entitled to recover under its quantum meruit theory.

We reverse and remand for entry of judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict and for assessment of attorney’
s fees in favor of MasTec.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORYE l

Paso is one of the world’s largest energy companies. MasTec is a construction company that was established
in the 1930s and that has annual gross revenue exceeding $1 billion.

At the time of the events, El Paso owned a butane pipeline that extended from Houston to Corpus Christi. The
pipeline was originally constructed in the 1940s as an emergency supply line during the war. Because of its
age and because it was deemed too shallow (buried less than 12 inches underground), El Paso contracted for
its replacement, which took place in phases. This lawsuit involves Phase II of the replacement—a 68-mile, 8-
inch diameter line extending from Victoria to Nueces Bay. Footnote

El Paso invited MasTec to bid on the replacement Project, which was to include removal of the existing
pipeline and the construction of a new pipeline in the same location. MasTec hired Bill White, who is
considered by MasTec to be “a pipeline-construction veteran,” as its general manager. White attended El
Paso’s “pre-bid meeting” on April 22, 2003, at which El Paso distributed bid packages containing the job
description, the location of the pipeline, drawings or maps, known as “alignment sheets,” and the Contract.

According to El Paso’s bidding instructions, “The Contractor’s bid shall be based on the Contract documents
as issued, without modifications. All clarifications or changes during the bid period will be communicated to all
Contractors. . . . Significant exceptions to the provisions of the Proposed Contract documents may cause
rejection of the bid. . . . The Scope of Work is believed to be complete.”

The purpose of the alignment sheets was to show “foreign crossings,” which are obstacles that cross the
pipeline right of way—such as other pipelines, utilities, roads, rivers, fences, wells, cables, and concrete
structures. Substantial costs are involved in maneuvering around these structures during pipeline construction
and de-construction. El Paso had hired Gullett & Associates, an engineering company, to produce the
alignment sheets.

The invitation to the pre-bid meeting stated, “No guided tour of the proposed pipeline is now scheduled. Each
contractor will be required to review the construction requirements individually. Aerial inspection is highly
recommended.” At the meeting, Jackie Ross, who was initially a consultant to El Paso and later became the
full-time assistant to the project manager on this Project, told the contractors that El Paso would normally
conduct a tour of the pipeline, but that there would be too many cars in this case and that each of the
contractors was encouraged to “fly the route.”

After the pre-bid meeting, White and his son, Mike, flew by helicopter over the pipeline route, familiarizing
themselves with the topography and landing several times to check soil conditions. Mike testified by deposition
that he carried the alignment sheets in his lap during the flight for orientation, but that he could not see
foreign crossings from the air. White also drove along portions of the pipeline to which he had access.
According to White, MasTec and the other contractors were specifically prohibited from entering certain
private properties along the route, including the O’Connor Ranch. El Paso later claimed that the contractors
were permitted to enter the restricted areas for inspection if they arranged for an escort by an El Paso
representative.

Pursuant to El Paso’s written bidding instructions, MasTec’s bid and completed Contract, including lump-sum
price schedule, were due 12 business days later, on May 8, 2003. This date was later amended to May 15,
2003.

The Contract and Specifications

The Contract, which MasTec was to sign and submit with its bid, provides as follows, in pertinent part:

2.1     SCOPE OF WORK

[MasTec] agrees, at its cost, that it shall (except as otherwise provided for in the Contract or Drawings) furnish
all necessary materials, supplies, labor, tools, equipment superintendence, apparatus and machinery,
including without limitation, transportation and all other items necessary to perform the Work for the
construction and completion of, and shall construct, install, complete, and deliver to [El Paso] in a good and
workmanlike manner, in strict compliance with the Contract and all applicable laws, rules, regulations,
ordinances and permits, all of the Work set forth in Exhibit “A,” “Scope of Work and Addendums” (attached
hereto), all in accordance with the provisions of this Contract.

. . . .

4.1     COMPENSATION

For and in consideration of the performance of the Work by [MasTec] and subject to the terms and conditions
of this Contract, [El Paso] agrees to pay and [MasTec] agrees to accept compensation as set forth in the
attached Exhibit “B-1,” Contract Price Schedule.

. . . .

4.6     COMPENSATION FOR DELAYS IN PERFORMANCE OF WORK

a)       By [MasTec]: All delays in the performance of the Work resulting from causes other than those
attributable to [El Paso] shall be at the cost and expense of [MasTec]. . . .

b)      By [El Paso]: For delays in the performance of the Work attributable to [El Paso], it is agreed that the
compensation and/or amounts due [MasTec] in full and complete settlement of such delays shall be as follows:
[various lump sum settlement or reimbursement options].
. . . .
7.1     REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
. . . .
e)       [MasTec represents] [t]hat its duly authorized representative has visited the site of the Work, is familiar
with the local and special conditions under which the Work is to be performed and has correlated the on site
observations with the requirements of the Contract and has fully acquainted itself with the site, including
without limitation, the general topography, accessibility, soil structure, subsurface conditions, obstructions and
all other conditions pertaining to the Work and has made all investigations essential to a full understanding of
the difficulties which may be encountered in performing the Work, and that anything in this Contract or in any
representations, statements or information made or furnished by [El Paso] or any of its representatives
notwithstanding, [MasTec] assumes full and complete responsibility for any such conditions pertaining to the
Work, the site of the Work or its surroundings and all risks in connection therewith;

f)       That it possesses a high level of experience and expertise in the business, administration, construction
management and superintendence of projects of the size, complexity and nature of the Work and that it will
perform the Work with the care, skill and diligence of such a Contractor;

g)      That the Contract is sufficiently complete and detailed for [MasTec] to perform the Work required to
produce the results intended by the Contract and comply with all the requirements of the Contract; . . .

8.1     CONTRACTOR’S CONTROL OF THE WORK

a)       . . . .

. . . .

7. [MasTec] represents that it has had an opportunity to examine, and has carefully examined, all of the
Contract documents and has fully acquainted itself with the Scope of Work, design, availability of materials,
existing facilities, the general topography, soil structure, substructure conditions, obstructions, and all other
conditions pertaining to the Work, the site of the Work and its surroundings; that it has made all investigations
essential to a full understanding of the difficulties which may be encountered in performing the Work; and that
anything in any of the Contract documents or in any representations, statements or information made or
furnished by [El Paso] or its representatives notwithstanding, [Mastec] will regardless of any such conditions
pertaining to the Work, the site of the Work or its surroundings, complete the Work for the compensation
stated in this Contract, and pursuant to the extent of [MasTec’s] liability under this Contract, assume full and
complete responsibility for any such conditions pertaining to the Work, the site of the Work or its
surroundings, and all risks in connection therewith. In addition thereto, [MasTec] represents that it is fully
qualified to do the work in accordance with the terms of this Contract within the time specified.
. . . .
24.1   EXHIBITS

The following Exhibits are included herein by reference, are attached hereto and shall become a part of this
Contract for all purposes:
. . . .
Exhibit “B-1”        Contract Price Schedule
. . . .
Exhibit “C”  Construction Specifications
. . . .
25.1   ORDER
. . . .
b)      . . . The Specifications, Drawings, Exhibits, and all supplemental documents are essential parts of the
Contract, and a requirement appearing in one is as binding as though appearing in all. They are intended to
be complementary, to describe and provide a complete Work.
. . . .
28.1   AGREEMENT

This Contract, together with all Exhibits and attachments, constitutes the entire Contract agreement between
the parties relating to its subject matter and no other conversations, bid, memoranda or other matter between
the parties relating to the subject matter of this Contract, oral or written, exchanged before execution of this
Contract shall vary, alter or be used to interpret the terms of this Contract.

Pursuant to Exhibit B-1 of the Contract, “Contractor’s Proposal,” MasTec agreed to perform “everything
necessary to complete, satisfy, and discharge all Work and obligations imposed on [MasTec] connected with
the performance of the Work,” including, as follows:

Furnish all labor, equipment and materials as described in the Specifications for all Work necessary to
perform the following applicable Work as shown on the Drawings, including but not limited to: loading, hauling,
unloading, storing, clearing, excavating, including rock if encountered, cutting and beveling of pipe; installing
pipe or valves, where required; removing pipe or valves, where required; welding (including tie-in and
transition welds, if required); coating, repairing coating, furnishing and installing padding when applicable;
installing concrete supports; blow-offs, bypasses, bolting, bracing hydrostatic testing of completed assemblies,
painting of newly installed piping assemblies and cleanup.
. . . .
Any Work required to complete installation of the new pipeline but not shown as a pay item is no less included
in the scope of work for installation of the new 8-inch Butane Shuttle pipeline and is included in [MasTec’s]
lump sum proposal. Just because an item of Work is not specifically identified, does not mean such Work is
not included in [MasTec’s] scope of Work. Any item of Work [MasTec] knows is required for completion of the
installation but not specifically identified is to be included in [MasTec’s] Lump Sum Proposal.Exhibit C of the
Contract provided the “Construction Specifications.” At Specification LP-1, “General Conditions,” the Contract
provides that, “Unless otherwise specified, [El Paso] will furnish only basic reference lines and bench marks
from which [MasTec] shall establish such other points as it may need.” Specification LP-5, specified, in
relevant part, that El Paso “will have exercised due diligence” in locating foreign crossings and that MasTec
“shall confirm” the location of the crossings during construction before actually digging or drilling, as follows:

2.COMPANY FOREIGN LINE AND UTILITY CROSSINGS

The Company will have exercised due diligence in locating foreign pipelines and utility line crossings.
However, the contractor shall confirm the location of all such crossings and notify the owner prior to any
ditching activity in the vicinity of the crossings. . . .

Specification LP-17, provides the same, as follows:

2.       FOREIGN LINE AND UTILITY CROSSINGS

The Company will have exercised due diligence in locating foreign pipelines and/or utility line crossings.
However, the Contractor shall confirm the location of all such crossings and notify the owner prior to any HDD
[Footnote] activity in the vicinity of the crossings. Contractor shall be responsible for all damages to foreign
pipelines and/or utility line crossings during HDD operations. Contractor shall repair damaged foreign
pipelines and/or utility line crossings to original or better condition and meet Company approval. In all cases,
foreign pipelines, utility line crossings and/or structures take precedence over Company tolerances.

The Bid

White, on behalf of MasTec, submitted a completed Contract, per El Paso’s bidding instructions, and a bid of
$3,619,960, which included the removal of the old pipeline and construction of the new pipeline. White
included a standard 15 percent contingency in the bid for unidentified foreign crossings.

After El Paso reviewed the bids submitted by the various contractors and narrowed its choices to MasTec and
one other contractor, El Paso called a meeting with White. According to White, he and El Paso went over
scheduling, manpower, equipment, and projected production rates to ensure compliance with El Paso’s
timeframe. [Footnote] According to Ross, he and other representatives from El Paso discussed with White that
MasTec’s bid was substantially lower than the bids submitted by other contractors and that MasTec would be
permitted to withdraw its bid if it so chose. White disputes that he was ever told that MasTec’s bid was low or
that MasTec was being given the choice to withdraw. Ultimately, El Paso accepted MasTec’s bid.

The Contract is Executed and Work Begins

Work on the Project was to commence June 9, 2003 and to be completed on October 1, 2003.
Commencement was delayed because El Paso had permitting issues and had not yet finalized the purchase of
work space along the right-of-way from some of the landowners. Nevertheless, work began in the early part of
June.

The Dispute

It is undisputed that, after construction began, MasTec was required to confirm the exact locations of the
foreign crossings that El Paso had identified to avoid cutting through the crossings. MasTec began to
encounter numerous foreign pipeline crossings that were not on El Paso’s alignment sheets. MasTec hired
Steve Edwards to locate the foreign crossings.

Edwards testified by deposition read to the jury that foreign pipeline crossings represent a significant safety
hazard during pipeline construction. Each crossing must be treated as a “live” line, that is, “something that is
going to explode if you hit it.” Edwards employed a metal detector device, known as an “M-scope,” to find the
foreign crossings. Edwards explained that the M-scope is designed to locate metal pipelines, as well as PVC
and fiberglass pipelines that contain metal tracers. The M-scope is not designed to locate pipelines that do
not contain metal or metal tracers. To find PVC and fiberglass pipelines, Edwards talked with adjacent
landowners and pipeline operators; used a crew of up to 20 men to probe the ground with metal rods and
shovels, and to dig trenches five feet deep; used hydraulic vacuums to pressure wash the holes; and marked
the pipelines with stakes and red tape. Edwards said that he located an “extreme amount” of non-metal
foreign crossings and that MasTec was forced to hire an additional M-scope crew to keep up with the pipeline
strippers.

Edwards testified that it was not unusual to find five to ten percent more foreign crossings than those identified
on the alignment sheets by the pipeline owner. In this case, however, he found “approximately 1000” foreign
crossings that were not on El Paso’s alignment sheets. Most of the unidentified foreign crossings were located
on the O’Connor Ranch. Edwards said that El Paso had refused to assist them in locating the lines.

Greg Floerke, senior vice president of MasTec’s Communications Group, explained that each time MasTec
found a new foreign crossing, it slowed production down and efficiency was lost. MasTec had to stop the
assembly line to excavate, remove soil from around the crossing, lay the pipe, make special bends, and weld
each end. Edwards explained that, because of the close proximity of the other El Paso pipeline and the Valero
pipeline in the same right-of-way, each of these “tie-ins” that were created to go around the foreign crossing
required that special OSHA-approved manholes be created so that a welder could safely go down and
perform the welds. In addition, cutting crews and X-ray crews had to go down in the holes. Further, there was
a lot of sink water that had to be pumped out.

According to Edwards, the situation was exacerbated by the fact that, during construction, the area was hit
with two hurricanes and 50 to 60 inches of rain that flooded the area, filled the pipeline ditches with silt, and
knocked out all of Edwards’s stakes marking the previously unidentified plastic and fiberglass crossings.
Edwards explained that, had El Paso’s alignment sheets been accurate, the crews could have followed the
sheets, walked back to the crossings, and resumed work once the weather stopped. Instead, Edwards was
forced to re-survey and re-stake the foreign crossings in the right-of way. Edwards said that the crews spent
days digging fruitlessly looking for lines.

Ultimately, according to Edwards, it was a representative from Valero who offered the most assistance. El
Paso had sold to Valero a 12-inch pipeline that laid in the same corridor and ran parallel to the pipeline at
issue in the instant suit. Edwards testified that Valero’s alignment sheets contained many of the plastic and
fiberglass crossings that he was finding.

According to Edwards, of those foreign crossings that Gullett had staked, several were mis-marked, were 20
to 30 feet off their exact locations, and had to be relocated. Edwards testified that, ultimately, Gullett came out
to the site and followed behind Edwards, recording the foreign pipeline crossings that Edwards and his crews
had located.

Greg Perkins, a mechanical engineer testifying as an expert for MasTec, said that he found quite a disparity
between El Paso’s for-bid drawings and the as-built drawings. Perkins said that the Contract required El Paso
to use due diligence in locating the foreign crossings; that MasTec depended on El Paso’s statement of the
foreign crossings; and that the level of El Paso’s inaccuracy “was catastrophic.” With all of the other pipelines
in the same route as the subject pipeline, El Paso “should have had a better handle on the number of foreign
crossings that were actually there.” Perkins explained that El Paso could have contacted landowners and
operating companies. Perkins testified that MasTec located 794 foreign crossings and that over 200 of those
crossings were actually metal pipelines that had not been identified on El Paso’s alignment sheets.

John Reitzell, assistant project manager for MasTec, took over the Project after White was let go on November
19, 2003. Reitzell testified that the crews were having to pressure wash to find the lines and that Valero’s
drawings of the foreign crossings over its parallel pipeline were much more accurate and included the plastic
lines. According to Reitzell, it took a crew about 10 hours to perform a single tie-in. Reitzell testified that
MasTec could have accepted a variance of five percent on the foreign crossings, but that there were three
times as many foreign crossings as indicated on El Paso’s alignment sheets. In addition, Reitzell explained that
the “take up” crew that worked to pull up the old pipeline found it located at depths of six to seven feet
underground. According to Reitzell, El Paso had told MasTec that the pipeline was buried no more than 12
inches in the ground.

With regard to the duties under the Contract, Floerke testified that the Contract placed the responsibility on El
Paso to apply due diligence in locating and correctly identifying foreign crossings and that MasTec’s
responsibility was to verify those crossings before digging. Floerke testified that the issue is timing. First, El
Paso’s duty to use due diligence in determining the extent and location of foreign pipelines arose. Then, after
the bid was awarded, the contract was complete, and the crews were out in the field constructing the line,
MasTec’s duty arose to verify the foreign crossings before actual excavation.

Danny Dial, a forensic engineer testifying for MasTec, explained that “due diligence,” in the present context,
means that the operating company is telling the pipeline contractor that they have been diligent in locating all
the foreign crossings and will provide the information to the contractor. Dial testified that the industry custom
or practice is that, before soliciting bids for pipeline construction, operating companies (1) gather any “one-
call” [Footnote] information in their catalog; (2) send out a survey crew; (3) and send their landmen to talk with
the landowners from whom the company obtained its right-of-way easements because the landowners are the
best source of information regarding any other easements that have been granted to other pipeline operators
in the same area.

Dial explained that, because there was an existing Valero pipeline in the same right-of-way [Footnote] and
parallel to the subject pipeline, “it would have been prudent for El Paso to contact Valero and compare as-built
drawings to see if they were aware of other foreign crossings in that area.”

Dial explained that when a lump-sum agreement is made between an operating company and a contractor, the
contractor is necessarily placing a tremendous amount of trust in the specifications that the operating
company submits to the contractor for the bid. The contractor cannot see what is physically underground and
has to rely on information given by the operator. Here, El Paso specifically placed in the Contract assurances
that it had exercised due diligence in locating any foreign crossings. El Paso owns the line, controls the
easement, and has access to what crosses through the area.

Ross, of El Paso, testified that El Paso hired the survey company, Gullett & Associates, to survey the line, to
use metal detectors, and to “try to locate any pipeline that they can, anything visible,” such as line markers.
Ross testified that El Paso had the preliminary alignment sheets that were created in the 1940s for the
pipeline at issue, but that he could not recall having seen any as-built alignment sheets. Ross testified that the
alignment sheets came from the operating company, Coastal, from whom El Paso had purchased the pipeline,
that the sheets “were very poor,” “very inadequate,” and would not have shown any of the crossings that were
installed after the 1940s. Ross said that he did not believe that the alignment sheets were ever updated.
When asked if he had seen the alignment sheets for Valero’s line, Ross replied that he did not recall having
had access to them. Ross testified that he did not instruct Gullett to attempt to locate or mark any PVC or
fiberglass lines unless such lines could be seen “by something visual.” Ross further stated that he did not
inquire as to whether El Paso had any “one call” information cataloged and did not attempt to contact any of
the landowners or other operating companies along the pipeline route. Ross asserted that El Paso “was to
perform due diligence to the best they were available [sic] and that’s what [it] did.”

Richard Schubert, survey supervisor for Gullett, testified that his scope of work on the Project was to “collect
all data that was pertinent to mapping the pipeline, whether above ground facilities, an oil well, . . . a below
ground structure, a pipeline.” Schubert testified that he was asked to locate all the foreign crossings that he
could locate “strictly with the M-scope.” Schubert testified that he did not attempt to find any PVC or fiberglass
lines because it was not part of El Paso’s instructions. At the close of the Project, El Paso sent Schubert back
out to confirm the number and locations of the additional foreign crossings that MasTec had reported to El
Paso. Schubert testified that he recorded the GPS location of each foreign crossing. Schubert stated that he
also recorded every tie-in because each of the welds must be reported to the Texas Department of
Transportation. Schubert testified that there were 274 additional foreign crossings and 126 additional tie-ins.
During Schubert’s testimony, it was discussed that the alignment sheets Gullett prepared for El Paso to give to
the contractors for bidding purposes showed 282 foreign crossings and the as-built drawings Gullett prepared
after MasTec completed the Project showed 343 additional foreign crossings—208 of which were metal.

According to Mastec, there were 794 foreign crossings, which required a total of 217 additional tie-ins. The
Project was complete in December 2003.

Communications Concerning the Foreign Crossings

During construction, in a letter to White from Mark Bounds, Director of Onshore Engineering for El Paso Field
Services, dated September 5, 2003, Bounds wrote to confirm that the Project was on track for completion by
October 1, 2003, and to confirm that “as of September 1, 2003, there were [sic] no outstanding extra work
issues or claims for additional compensation that had not been addressed by EPFS [El Paso Field Services] to
MasTec’s full satisfaction” and to confirm that “all extra work performed prior to September 1, 2003 has been
addressed to MasTec’s full satisfaction and included in payments to Contractor authorized to date.”

White responded to Bounds, in a letter dated September 8, 2003,

I would like to take this opportunity to bring to your attention some issues that I feel justify discussion for extra
compensation to MasTec for costs not covered by the Contract. This letter does not represent any demand by
MasTec for payment for extra cost issues at this time. We merely are asking that you take into consideration
and review our position related to additional costs beyond our control.
. . . .
Please review the following issues that I feel should be entitled to some compensation, for our cost overrun.
Keep in mind that MasTec does not feel that EPFS misrepresented any information intentionally, or withheld
any information pertinent to bidding this project. We merely feel that circumstances beyond your control, and
ours, has had a cost impact to MasTec worth reviewing.
. . . .
2)      Pipeline Crossing (Foreign Pipelines) O’Connor Ranch

From [point-to-point] there are approximately 87 pipeline crossings, indicated on the line sheets. During the
bidding process, we allowed for a 15% increase in the estimated line crossings to arrive at a cost amount. The
final outcome is there are approximately 450-500 pipeline crossings in this area. (We will have documentation
with accurate numbers in a few days.) These were mostly all fiberglass lines that no one had any knowledge
of. There is a great deal of extra cost associated with ditching and tie-ins . . . .

White testified by deposition at trial that he had not submitted change orders on the additional foreign pipeline
crossings because the “problems were still ongoing and we couldn’t arrive at a cost” yet. White testified that
he had had daily conversations with El Paso because El Paso was concerned, with all of the flooding, about
the penalties El Paso faced with a third party if the completion deadline was not met.

In a letter to White from Bounds, dated September 26, 2003, Bounds responded that it was El Paso’s position
that the issues White stated were within MasTec’s scope of work. Specifically, with regard to the foreign
crossings, Bounds stated,

The fact was well documented that in the project alignment sheets provided to MasTec that [El Paso’s] 8-inch
Butane Shuttle pipe replacement project was to traverse numerous active and inactive oil and gas producing
fields along its entire length. Also, [the specifications] state that [El Paso] will exercise due diligence in locating
foreign pipeline crossings but it is [MasTec’s] responsibility to confirm all such crossings and contact the
owner therof prior to any excavation. In effect, [El Paso] contracted with [MasTec] to provide this service as
part of the pipeline replacement Work and is therefore included in [MasTec’s] project Scope of Work as
defined in the bid documents. [MasTec’s] execution of the construction agreement represented that [MasTec]
had fully acquainted itself with the site, including without limitation, the general topography, . . . subsurface
conditions, obstructions, and all other conditions pertaining to the Work and made all investigations essential
to a full understanding of the difficulties which may be encountered in performing the Work, and that anything
in the contract or in any representations, statements or information made or furnished by [El Paso] or any of it
[sic] representatives notwithstanding, [MasTec] assumed full and complete responsibility for any such
conditions pertaining to the Work or its surroundings and all risks in connection therewith.

In a second letter of the same date, Bounds asked White to indicate by signing that all of the change orders,
which had been submitted to prior to September 1, had been agreed upon. White signed the letter. White
testified that there were no outstanding change orders on the foreign crossings because the rains were
ongoing, resolution of the foreign pipeline issues was ongoing, and MasTec was completely unable to assign
a cost. The testimony at trial was that, in a check dated on or about this same date, El Paso paid MasTec
$48,000 for additional drilling costs associated with the unidentified foreign crossings.

The Lawsuit

MasTec sued El Paso for breach of contract and fraud, [Footnote] alleging that El Paso had, during the
bidding process, provided MasTec with drawings, specifications, and other materials so that MasTec could
evaluate the work and prepare a bid, and that MasTec relied on that information; that El Paso had
represented that its existing pipeline was either on top of the ground or buried no more than 12 inches below
ground, but that MasTec had discovered during deconstruction that the majority of the existing pipeline was
buried two to five feet below ground level; that the Contract required El Paso to employ due diligence in
identifying or marking all foreign crossings, that El Paso had failed to do so, and that El Paso had
misrepresented the true number of foreign crossings by 500 percent; that El Paso’s employees or agents
made promises to surface landowners with respect to services and improvements that went beyond the scope
of the Contract and the bid; and that El Paso had refused to issue change orders or to compensate MasTec
for any of the additional work. In the alternative, MasTec sought to recover under theories of quantum meruit
and quantum valebant. MasTec sought $5.3 million in damages.

The matter was tried to a jury. The jury was asked in question one of the charge whether El Paso had failed to
comply with the contract, and the jury was instructed that it “should consider whether El Paso exercised due
diligence in locating foreign pipelines and/or utility line crossings.” The jury answered, “Yes.” In question three,
the jury was asked what sum of money would “fairly and reasonably compensate MasTec for its damages, if
any, that resulted from El Paso’s failure to comply with the contract.” The jury was instructed to consider any
increased costs incurred by MasTec as a result of unidentified foreign crossings and any consequential lost
profits. The jury answered, “$4,763,890.” Further, the jury found that MasTec failed to comply with the
contract by failing to complete the work required and awarded El Paso $104,687.09 in damages. Footnote  

Subsequently, El Paso moved to disregard the jury’s findings and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. El
Paso asserted that question one of the jury charge was improperly worded and that “MasTec’s own
contractual representations and commitments conclusively preclude any recovery in its favor based on this
finding.” Specifically, El Paso complained,

Question No. 1 is framed as a breach of contract question and focused on whether [El Paso] had exercised
due diligence in locating foreign pipeline and utility line crossings. [El Paso’s] efforts to locate these crossings,
however, came before the construction contract and the representation regarding the crossings were
contained only in the plans and specifications for the project. Therefore, the contractual provision regarding
[El Paso’s] “due diligence” did not involve any future performance but at best constituted a warranty.

El Paso contended that MasTec’s “Breach of Warranty” claim was precluded under paragraph 8.1(a)(7) of the
Contract, under which MasTec was precluded from relying on “any warranty” by El Paso regarding due
diligence in locating the foreign pipelines and utility crossings and that MasTec assumed the associated risks.

El Paso asserted that “[t]he fact that MasTec encountered more underground pipeline crossings than were
shown on the drawings was a risk it willingly and openly assumed” and MasTec “has no breach of contract
action against [El Paso] on this basis.”

The trial court agreed. The trial court found, in pertinent part, as follows:

El Paso Field Services, L.P.[,] moved for judgment on the ground that no jury issue was submitted against it,
and the Court is of the opinion that El Paso Field Services, L.P.[,] is entitled to judgment. Therefore, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that [MasTec] take nothing against El Paso Field Services, L.P.
Footnote

[MasTec] filed a motion for entry of judgment on the jury verdict. [El Paso South Footnote ] filed a motion for
entry of judgment . . . the Court finds that the Contract at issue in this case between [MasTec] and [El Paso]
(admitted into evidence as Defendants’ Exhibit 1) is clear and unambiguous. This Contract allocates the risk of
any additional cost incurred because of foreign pipeline crossings to [MasTec]. The Court therefore grants [El
Paso’s] motion (a) for judgment non obstante verdicto and (b) to disregard certain jury answers. The jury’s
answers to Questions 1 and 3 in the court’s charge are immaterial and are disregarded. It is accordingly
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that [MasTec] take nothing against [El Paso] on its claim for
additional compensation under the Contract. Because of this ruling, MasTec is not entitled to recover any of
its attorneys’ fees incurred in the prosecution of its breach of contract claim against [El Paso].

MasTec moved to “vacate, modify, correct, or reform” the judgment and, alternatively, for a new trial. The trial
court denied MasTec’s motion. This appeal ensued.

Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

In its sole issue, MasTec contends that the trial court erred by granting JNOV in favor of El Paso on the basis
that MasTec assumed all of the risks associated with unidentified foreign crossings because the trial court’s
interpretation of the Contract rendered the due diligence provision a nullity and improperly shifted the risks
associated with those crossings to MasTec.

A.      Standard of Review

A trial court may disregard a jury finding and enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) if the
finding is immaterial or if there is no evidence to support one or more of the jury findings on issues necessary
to liability. Tiller v. McClure, 121 S.W.3d 709, 713 (Tex. 2003); Spencer v. Eagle Star Ins. Co. of Am., 876 S.W.
2d 154, 157 (Tex. 1994); Williams v. Briscoe, 137 S.W.3d 120, 124 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no
pet.). A trial court may grant a motion for JNOV if a directed verdict would have been proper. Tex. R. Civ. P.
301.

A question is “immaterial” when it should not have been submitted to the jury, it calls for a finding beyond the
province of the jury, such as a question of law, or when it was properly submitted but has been rendered
immaterial by other findings. Se. Pipe Line Co. v. Tichacek, 997 S.W.2d 166, 172 (Tex. 1999); Spencer, 876 S.
W.2d at 157.

To determine whether there is no evidence to support the jury verdict, we view the evidence in a light that
tends to support the finding of the disputed fact and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary.
Tiller, 121 S.W.3d at 713. We sustain the granting of a JNOV based on “no evidence” when the record
discloses one of the following: (1) a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact; (2) the trial court is barred
by the rules of law or evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; (3) the
evidence offered to prove a vital fact is not more than a scintilla; or (4) the evidence establishes conclusively
the opposite of a vital fact. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 810 (Tex. 2005); Tiller, 121 S.W.3d at
713. More than a scintilla of evidence exists if the evidence supporting the finding “rises to a level that would
enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions.” Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye,
907 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Tex. 1995).

When, as here, a trial court specifies the ground upon which it grants a JNOV, an appellant need only
challenge the ground relied upon by the trial court. Voskamp v. Arnoldy, 749 S.W.2d 113, 118 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ denied). However, the appellee may assert on appeal the grounds that it alleged
in its motion for JNOV, but that were not relied upon by the trial court, to attempt to vitiate the jury’s verdict.
Tex. R. App. P. 38.2(b); Tex. R. Civ. P. 324(c); Voskamp, 749 S.W.2d at 118.

B.      Governing Principles of Law

In construing a written contract, the primary concern is to ascertain and give effect to the parties’ intentions as
expressed in the document. Frost Nat’l Bank v. L & F Distribs., Ltd., 165 S.W.3d 310, 311–12 (Tex. 2005). We
consider the entire writing and attempt to harmonize and give effect to all the provisions of the contract by
analyzing the provisions with reference to the whole agreement. Id. at 312. We presume that the parties
intended for every clause to have some effect. Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tex.
1996). No single provision is given controlling effect. J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 229
(Tex. 2003). We give terms their plain, ordinary and generally accepted meaning unless the instrument shows
that the parties used them in a technical or different sense. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d at 121. “In harmonizing
these provisions, terms stated earlier in an agreement must be favored over subsequent terms.” Coker v.
Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tex. 1983). We construe contracts “from a utilitarian standpoint bearing in mind
the particular business activity sought to be served,” and “will avoid when possible and proper a construction
which is unreasonable, inequitable, and oppressive.” Frost Nat’l Bank, 165 S.W.3d at 312 (quoting Reilly v.
Rangers Mgmt., Inc., 727 S.W.2d 527, 530 (Tex. 1987)).

If, after the pertinent rules of construction are applied, the contract can be given a definite or certain legal
meaning, it is unambiguous, and we construe it as a matter of law. Id.; Transcon. Gas Pipeline Corp. v.
Texaco, Inc., 35 S.W.3d 658, 665 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (holding that “[i]f the
contract is unambiguous, the court must enforce the contract as written.”). However, if the meaning of the
contract remains uncertain or is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous. Nat’l
Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995); Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 393–94.

Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law to be determined “by looking at the contract as a whole
in light of the circumstances present when the contract was entered.” Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 394. Only when a
contract is first determined to be ambiguous may the courts consider the parties’ interpretation and admit
extraneous evidence to determine the true meaning of the instrument. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 907 S.W.2d at
520. An ambiguity does not arise simply because the parties advance conflicting interpretations of the
contract. Forbau v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 876 S.W.2d 132, 134 (Tex. 1994).

A court may conclude that a contract is ambiguous even in the absence of such a pleading by either party.
Sage St. Assocs. v. Northdale Constr. Co., 863 S.W.2d 438, 445 (Tex. 1993).

C.      Due Diligence

MasTec directs us to Specifications LP-5 and LP-17 of the Contract, which specifically address foreign
crossings and provide that El Paso “will have exercised due diligence in locating” the crossings, as follows:

2.COMPANY FOREIGN LINE AND UTILITY CROSSINGS

[El Paso] will have exercised due diligence in locating foreign pipelines and utility line crossings. However, the
contractor shall confirm the location of all such crossings and notify the owner prior to any ditching activity in
the vicinity of the crossings. . . .. . . .

2.       FOREIGN LINE AND UTILITY CROSSINGS

[El Paso] will have exercised due diligence in locating foreign pipelines and/or utility line crossings. However,
the Contractor shall confirm the location of all such crossings and notify the owner prior to any HDD [Footnote]
activity in the vicinity of the crossings. Contractor shall be responsible for all damages to foreign pipelines
and/or utility line crossings during HDD operations. Contractor shall repair damaged foreign pipelines and/or
utility line crossings to original or better condition and meet Company approval. In all cases, foreign pipelines,
utility line crossings and/or structures take precedence over Company tolerances.
(Emphasis added.)

The plain language of these provisions reflect that El Paso made a positive assurance that due diligence was
used in locating its foreign crossings. See NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d at 121. It is undisputed that MasTec had
a duty prior to actually digging or drilling to confirm the location of the crossings because it is common for
pipeline positions to vary several feet from the positioning noted on the alignment sheets and because of the
expense of repair and safety hazards involved with striking a live pipeline. The issue is the language,
emphasized above, in which El Paso asserted that it had exercised due diligence in locating its foreign
crossings, which were depicted on the alignment sheets that were provided to MasTec as the basis for
MasTec’s bid.

The term “due diligence” means “[t]he diligence reasonably expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a
person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to discharge an obligation.” Black’s Law Dictionary 468
(7th ed.). Whether a party has exercised “due diligence” is a question of fact. Wheeler v. Methodist Hosp., 95
S.W.3d 628, 637 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).

Dial, a forensic engineer testifying for Mastec, testified that “due diligence” in the pipeline industry means that,
before soliciting bids for construction, the operating company has (1) gathered any “one-call” information in
their catalog; (2) sent out a survey crew; (3) and sent their landmen to talk with the landowners from whom the
company obtained its right-of-way easements because the landowners are the best source of information
regarding any other easements that have been granted to other pipeline operators in the same area. In
addition, here, because there is an existing Valero pipeline in the same right-of-way and parallel to the subject
pipeline, “it would have been prudent for El Paso to contact Valero and compare as-built drawings to see if
they were aware of other foreign crossings in that area.” Dial explained that the contractor cannot see what is
physically underground and has to rely on information given by the operator. El Paso owns the line, controls
the easement, and has access to what crosses through the area.

Ross, of El Paso, testified that El Paso had the preliminary alignment sheets that were created in the 1940s
for the pipeline at issue, but that he could not recall having seen any as-built alignment sheets. Ross testified
that the alignment sheets came from the operating company, Coastal, from whom El Paso had purchased the
pipeline, that the sheets “were very poor,” “very inadequate,” and would not have shown any of the crossings
that were installed after the 1940s. Ross said that he did not believe that the alignment sheets were ever
updated. Ross testified that he could not recall having seen the alignment sheets for Valero’s line, Ross
testified that he did not instruct Gullett to attempt to locate or mark any of the underground PVC or fiberglass
lines unless such lines could be seen “by something visual.” Ross further stated that he did not inquire
regarding whether El Paso had any “one call” information cataloged and did not attempt to contact any of the
landowners or other operating companies along the pipeline route.

Further, the jury heard testimony by Schubert, survey supervisor for Gullett, that he was asked to locate all
the foreign crossings that he could locate “strictly with the M-scope.” Schubert testified that he did not attempt
to find any PVC or fiberglass lines because it was not part of El Paso’s instructions. The record shows that the
alignment sheets that Gullett prepared for El Paso to give to the contractors for bidding purposes showed 282
foreign crossings. Schubert testified that, when he was sent out at the close of the Project, he located 274
additional crossings and 126 additional tie-ins. According to Gullett, the as-built drawings it prepared after
MasTec completed the Project showed 343 additional foreign crossings—208 of which were metal.

Perkins testified that, during construction, MasTec located 794 foreign crossings. Two hundred of those
crossings were metal pipelines that had not been identified on the alignment sheets. Two hundred and
seventeen additional tie-ins were required.

From this evidence, the jury could have reasonably concluded, as it did in Question One, that El Paso
breached the due diligence provision of the Contract.

D.      Risk Allocation

El Paso contends that, without regard to whether it used due diligence to locate its foreign crossings or
whether the crossings were noted on its alignment sheets, MasTec assumed the risks of any costs attributable
to unidentified foreign crossings by submitting a lump-sum bid that was to cover all of the work, as provided at
Article 2.1 of the Contract:

[MasTec] agrees, at its cost, that it shall (except as otherwise provided for in the Contract or Drawings) furnish
all necessary materials, supplies, labor, tools, equipment superintendence, apparatus and machinery,
including without limitation, transportation and all other items necessary to perform the Work for the
construction and completion . . . .In addition, El Paso contends that, at Exhibit B-1 of the Contract, “Contractor’
s Proposal,” MasTec agreed to perform “everything necessary to complete, satisfy, and discharge all Work
and obligations imposed on [MasTec] connected with the performance of the Work,” including, as follows:
Furnish all labor, equipment and materials as described in the Specifications for all Work necessary to
perform the following applicable Work as shown on the Drawings, including but not limited to: loading, hauling,
unloading, storing, clearing, excavating, including rock if encountered, cutting and beveling of pipe; installing
pipe or valves, where required; removing pipe or valves, where required; welding (including tie-in and
transition welds, if required); coating, repairing coating, furnishing and installing padding when applicable;
installing concrete supports; blow-offs, bypasses, bolting, bracing hydrostatic testing of completed assemblies,
painting of newly installed piping assemblies and cleanup.

Further, El Paso points out that, at paragraph 15 of Exhibit B-1, even if any item was not specifically identified,
it was still part of the scope of work and MasTec was responsible for it under the Contract, as follows:

Any Work required to complete installation of the new pipeline but not shown as a pay item is no less included
in the scope of work for installation of the new 8-inch Butane Shuttle pipeline and is included in [MasTec’s]
lump sum proposal. Just because an item of Work is not specifically identified, does not mean such Work is
not included in [MasTec’s] scope of Work. Any item of Work [MasTec] knows is required for completion of the
installation but not specifically identified is to be included in [MasTec’s] Lump Sum Proposal.

El Paso contends that, pursuant to these paragraphs, “MasTec agreed to perform all the work necessary to
complete the job for the lump sum price.” The plain language of these provisions reflects that MasTec
promised to furnish everything needed to perform the scope of work. See NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d at 121.
Notably, however, El Paso included language indicating “Any item of Work [MasTec] knows is required for
completion. . . .” (Emphasis added.)

In addition, contends El Paso, the risk of unidentified crossings was allocated to MasTec in Article 8.1(a)(7.) of
the Contract, as follows:

[MasTec] represents that it has had an opportunity to examine, and has carefully examined, all of the Contract
documents and has fully acquainted itself with the Scope of Work, design, availability of materials, existing
facilities, the general topography, soil structure, substructure conditions, obstructions, and all other conditions
pertaining to the Work, the site of the Work and its surroundings; that it has made all investigations essential
to a full understanding of the difficulties which may be encountered in performing the Work; and that anything
in any of the Contract documents or in any representations, statements or information made or furnished by
[El Paso] or its representatives notwithstanding, [Mastec] will regardless of any such conditions pertaining to
the Work, the site of the Work or its surroundings, complete the Work for the compensation stated in this
Contract, and pursuant to the extent of [MasTec’s] liability under this Contract, assume full and complete
responsibility for any such conditions pertaining to the Work, the site of the Work or its surroundings, and all
risks in connection therewith. In addition thereto, [MasTec] represents that it is fully qualified to do the work in
accordance with the terms of this Contract within the time specified. (Emphasis added.)

MasTec responds that this provision does not govern the due diligence provisions because, although it
mentions “substructure conditions, obstacles, and all other conditions,” it does not mention foreign crossings.
As MasTec contends, we generally construe a specific provision to govern over a general. McCreary v. Bay
Area Bank & Trust, 68 S.W.3d 727, 731–32 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. dism’d).

Even if Article 8.1(a)(7) includes foreign crossings in the emphasized language, we must consider the entire
writing and attempt to harmonize and give effect to all the provisions of the Contract by analyzing the provision
with reference to the whole Contract, including the due diligence provisions. See Frost Nat’l Bank, 165 S.W.3d
at 312. We presume that the parties intended for every clause to have some effect, see NationsBank, 939 S.
W.2d at 121, and no single provision may be given controlling effect. See Webster, 128 S.W.3d at 229.

Hence, MasTec’s assumption of risk under the Contract must be considered in light of El Paso’s assurances
under the Contract. MasTec directs us to Shintech Inc. v. Group Constructors, Inc., 688 S.W.2d 144, (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no writ), and IT Corporation v. Motco Site Trust Fund, 903 F.Supp. 1106 (S.
D. Tex. 1994).

In Shintech, the court allowed a contractor to recover for damages in spite of a site inspection clause and the
contractor’s assumption of risk under the contract. Shintech Inc., 688 S.W.2d at 151. There, owner Shintech
engaged a contractor, Group, to finish an industrial plant expansion. Id. at 147. Group submitted a lump sum
bid to “furnish all labor, construction services, and supplies necessary,” which was accepted. Id.

During the project, Shintech allegedly interfered with the efficiency of Group’s work. Group sued Shintech,
asserting, inter alia, that Group incurred expenses based on Shintech’s “excessive design errors, changes,
and extra work orders.” Id. at 147–48 (emphasis added). The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Group.
Id. at 148.

On appeal, the court recognized that a contractor is entitled to recover from an owner for losses due to delay
and hindrance of its work if it proves (1) that its work was delayed or hindered, (2) that it suffered damages,
and (3) that the owner was responsible for the act or omission that caused the delay or hindrance. Id.
Shintech complained that, in the contract, Group had assumed the risk of delays and hindrances as follows:
“Having fully acquainted itself with the work, the site of the work, its surroundings and all risk in connection
therewith, the contractor assumes full and complete responsibility for completing the work for the
compensation and within the time provided . . . .” Id. at 151 (emphasis omitted). The court rejected Shintech’s
theory, stating that it found no evidence that Group had knowledge of defective specifications prior to
beginning its work. Id. In addition, the court found that the Shintech contract also provided, “Upsets of [the
construction schedule] caused by acts of the client [Shintech] or those over which he controls causing undue
expense on the contractor [Group] shall be for the owner’s [Shintech’s] account.” Id. at 148 (emphasis
omitted).

Here, like the contractor in Shintech, MasTec agreed to supply all services, labor, and materials necessary
under a lump sum contract; MasTec agreed to inspect the site and to assume responsibility for timely
completing the work for the agreed compensation; MasTec later discovered excessive errors in the
specifications provided by El Paso; and MasTec did not have knowledge of the defective specifications prior to
beginning its work. Also, the Contract herein provides at Article 4.6, “COMPENSATION FOR DELAYS IN
PERFORMANCE OF WORK,” section b, “For delays in the performance of the Work attributable to [El Paso], it
is agreed that the compensation and/or amounts due [MasTec] in full and complete settlement of such delays
shall be as follows: [various lump sum settlement or reimbursement options].” Hence, there is some evidence
in the Contract of intent to allocate to El Paso those expenses that cause MasTec delay and that are
attributable to El Paso.

MasTec also directs us to IT Corporation, a case from the southern district of Texas. 903 F.Supp. 1106.
There, the Environmental Protection Agency required Monsanto to perform remedial action at Monsanto’s
hazardous waste site. Id. at 1111. Monsanto sent to contractors a request for proposal and scope of work
(“bid documents”) that included technical data concerning the chemical waste at the site, as prepared by
Monsanto’s consultants. Id. A letter accompanying the bid documents stated that the waste characteristics
were “for information only and will not establish the basis for qualifying bids, quantities, methods,
compositions, etc. We feel that sufficient information is available to allow a responsible, experienced
contractor to provide a lump sum bid for the service required. . . .” Id. at 1117. The bid documents specified
that on-site incineration was to be the primary remedial method employed. Id. at 1111.

Although the letter accompanying the bid documents stated that the waste characteristics given were for
information only, the proposed bid format stated that the information shown in the specifications “shall be
used” in determining the lump sum price; that the “data is based upon test results by an independent
consultant and is considered reliable”; that the contractor should include a “suitable contingency based upon
the contractor’s experience”; and that “no cost adjustments will be allowed for surface debris quantities
different from those noted.” Id. at 1117–18.

Contractor ITC visited the site, obtained waste samples, performed limited testing, and submitted its lump-sum
bid with a signed statement that it was familiar with the site. Id. at 1111. ITC was awarded the contract. Id.

The contract defined the scope of work as follows:

The “Work” to be performed by Contractor under this Agreement shall consist of furnishing all personnel,
supervision, services, field labor, materials, tools, equipment, supplies and all things required for the
necessary design, engineering, construction of facilities and all associated services to properly complete the
Remedial Action in strict accordance with the Project Scope of Work . . . .

Contractor shall provide all labor, material, equipment and supervision required to completion the remediation
. . . .

Id. at 1119.  The Scope of Work section in the bid documents and the contract included extensive tables and
maps describing the geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the site. Id.

During the work, ITC discovered that the waste characteristics were not as Monsanto had specified in the bid
documents. Id. at 1111–12. ITC notified Monsanto that ITC could not reasonably have discovered the errors
until ITC had performed extensive work at the site and that these differences had a drastic impact on
efficiency of incineration and costs. Id. at 1112. ITC claimed that it could not do the work for the price it bid
because the work was not as represented by Monsanto. Id. Monsanto refused to consider ITC’s claims until
ITC completed a “trial burn.” Id. ITC continued to work under the contract while the parties negotiated. The
parties were unable to find compromise, and ITC suspended its work. Id.

ITC sued Monsanto for, inter alia, breach of contract, alleging that ITC had been forced to discontinue work
because Monsanto has misrepresented the site conditions. The jury returned a verdict in favor of ITC. Id.

On appeal, Monsanto contended that any misrepresentation in the bid documents was not a breach of the
contract. Id. at 1115. The court disagreed, holding that Monsanto had made assertions concerning the
characteristics of the waste that were materially false and that ITC, although it had not investigated the
accuracies of the characteristics described in the bid documents, was not estopped from asserting breach of
contract. Id. at 1115–16.

In addition, Monsanto argued that the contract placed the risk of the site conditions on ITC, that ITC had
assumed the risk by verifying with its bid that it was familiar with the site conditions, and that ITC was estopped
by its investigation from complaining about any misrepresentations in the RFP. Id. at 1116. Monsanto further
argued that, as a matter of law, the contract placed the risk of differing or unexpected site conditions on the
contractor, required the contractor to investigate the site prior to bidding, and that the contractor directed his
own work under the contract. Id.

ITC did not dispute that it was required to perform the contract for a lump sum. Id. at 1117. ITC asserted,
however, that the contract did not require it to bear the risk that the bid documents misrepresented the nature
and amount of the work to be performed. Id.

The court considered whether, in a lump sum contract in which the contractor has had a right to inspect the
site before bidding, the risk that the owner’s specifications are inaccurate or inadequate to perform the job
falls on the contractor as a matter of law. Id. at 1120.

In IT Corp., as does El Paso in the case before us, the appellee-owner relied on Lonergan v. San Antonio
Loan & Trust Co., 104 S.W. 1061 (Tex. 1907), and Emerald Forest Utility District v. Simonsen Construction
Co., 679 S.W.2d 51 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.), to support its contention that the
risk falls on the contractor. Id.

In Lonergan v. San Antonio Loan & Trust Co., the Texas Supreme Court held that a contractor was not
excused from performance under a contract to build a house even though the plans and specifications that
were prepared by the owner’s architect proved to be defective. 104 S.W. 1061, 1065 (Tex. 1907). After the
nearly completed house collapsed, the contractor abandoned the job, and the owner sued for breach of
contract. Id. at 1062. The contractor answered that the house collapsed because the plans and specifications
were defective. Id. The court held that the contractor was not excused from his contractual obligations to build
the house because the owner was not in a better position than the contractor to discover the inadequacies in
the plans and there was no express or implied contractual language that would justify a conclusion that the
parties intended that the owner be liable. Id. at 1066.

In Emerald Forest Utility District v. Simonsen Construction Company, the contractor agreed to construct an
underground sewer system according to plans furnished by the owner. 679 S.W.2d 51, 52 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The instructions to bidders had provided for independent
investigation of the work site and stated that the submission of a bid was to be “conclusive evidence” that the
contractor was “fully acquainted and satisfied” with the quality and quantity of work. Id. at 53. During
construction, the contractor encountered “very wet sand conditions.” Id. at 52. There was testimony that an
alternate “wet sand construction method” should have been applied. Id. After the contractor completed the
work, the sewer lines failed. Id. The owner sued the contractor. Id. A jury concluded that the lines failed
because the design provided by the owner was insufficient. Id. The court examined the contract and held that
the owner had not expressly or implicitly promised that the plans provided were sufficient for the work. Id. at 53.

The IT Corp. court, holding in favor of ITC, concluded that the case before it did not present a situation similar
to those involved in Lonergan or Emerald Forest because the contractor did not have the same opportunity or
ability as the owner to gather information about the site and to judge the sufficiency of that information before
submitting its bid. 903 F. Supp. at 1120–21, 1123.

Here, like IT Corp., the evidence shows that MasTec was not in as good a position as El Paso to gather critical
information concerning underground foreign crossings and to judge the sufficiency of the alignment sheets
that El Paso provided before submitting its bid. El Paso was in a better position to gather the information
concerning foreign crossings because it owned the existing pipeline, the easements along the right-of-way, as
well as a second pipeline in the same corridor. El Paso had access to its “one call” catalog, the contact
information for area landowners, and the alignment sheets on its other pipeline. In addition, the parallel
pipeline owned by Valero, which was purchased from El Paso, had alignment sheets showing most of the
plastic lines.

The Contract required MasTec to make visual observations of the site conditions, and, in its Invitation to Bid,
El Paso urged, “Aerial inspection is highly recommended.” MasTec undertook aerial inspection and landed in
several places along the right-of-way. The testimony shows, however, that the extent of the underground
foreign crossings at issue could not have been ascertained from such inspections. Notably, MasTec
presented evidence that El Paso limited or restricted MasTec’s access to O’Connor Ranch during bidding,
where the majority of the unidentified crossings were later found. Like in IT Corp., there is no indication that
MasTec was required as a result of its observations to undertake a full sampling and analytical program to
determine whether the condition of the foreign crossings shown in El Paso’s alignments sheets was accurate.
As in IT Corp., it would be reasonable to conclude that there was insufficient time between the request for bids
and the deadline to submit the bid to carry out an investigation into the accuracy of El Paso’s underground
data. Moreover, nothing in the bid package indicated that the foreign crossing information was an estimate or
was uncertain or should not be relied on by Mastec. El Paso stated in its bidding instructions that “[t]he scope
of work [was] believed to be complete.” MasTec submitted its bid and executed the Contract based on the
assurances in the specifications and incorporated into the Contract that El Paso “will have exercised due
diligence” in assuring the accuracy of the alignment sheets on which El Paso instructed that MasTec’s bid was
to be based. Hence, similar to IT Corp., MasTec’s assumption of risk under the Contract was based on the
premise that El Paso was performing with the due diligence it promised in the Contract.

As did the court in IT Corp., we conclude that this case is most similar to Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S.
165, 34 S. Ct. 553 (1914), which is also cited by MasTec.

In Hollerbach, the United States Supreme Court allowed a contractor to recover his extra expenses when he
discovered, during construction, deficiencies in owner-provided specifications in a contract that had also
required a pre-bid, independent investigation of the jobsite by the contractor. Id. at 172, 34 S. Ct. at 556.
There, the contractor, Hollerbach, contracted with the government to remove and rebuild a river dam. Id. at
167, 34 S. Ct. at 554. The contract specifications provided, inter alia, that “[t]he dam is now backed for about
50 feet with broken stone, sawdust, and sediment to a height of within 2 or 3 feet of the crest, and it is
expected that a cofferdam can be constructed with this stone . . . .” Id. at 168, 34 S. Ct. at 554. In addition, “[t]
he excavation behind the dam will be required to go to the bottom . . . .” Id. The contract also provided, “It is
expected that each bidder will visit the site of this work, . . . and ascertain the nature of the work, the general
character of the river as to floods and low water, and obtain the information necessary to enable him to make
an intelligent proposal.” Id. The contract further provided,

It is understood and agreed that the quantities given are approximate only, and that no claim shall be made
against the United States on account of any excess or deficiency, absolute or relative, in the same. Bidders . .
. are expected to examine the maps and drawings in this office, which are open to their inspection, to visit the
locality of the work, and to make their own estimates of the facilities and difficulties attending the execution of
the proposed contract, including local conditions, uncertainty of weather, and all other contingencies. Id. at
167, 34 S. Ct. at 554.

During construction, Hollerbach discovered that the dam was not backed with broken stone, sawdust, and
sediment, as stated in the specifications. Id. at 168, 34 S. Ct. at 554. Rather, the backing was composed of
“soft, slushy sediment” on top and a “cribwork” of “sound logs filled with stone” underneath. Id. The trial court
refused recovery of the additional expenses Hollerbach incurred to complete the project. Id. at 169, 34 S. Ct.
at 554.

The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the specifications assured the contractor of the character of the
material—a matter upon which the owner “might be presumed to speak with knowledge and authority.” Id. at
172, 34 S. Ct. at 556. The Court further explained,

We think this positive statement of the specifications must be taken as true and binding . . . . We think it would
be going quite too far to interpret the general language of the other paragraphs as requiring independent
investigation of facts which the specifications furnished by the [owner] as a basis of the contract left in no
doubt. If the [owner] wished to leave the matter open to the independent investigation of the claimants, it might
easily have omitted the specification as to the character of the [site] . . . . In its positive assertion of the nature
of this much of the work it made a representation upon which the claimants had a right to rely without an
investigation to prove its falsity. Id.

Here, like Hollerbach, El Paso made assurances concerning the quantity of its foreign crossings. In the
materials El Paso submitted to MasTec as the basis of its bid, El Paso stated that it had exercised due
diligence in locating any foreign crossings in the right-of-way and it showed that there were 282 such
crossings. As MasTec contends, the Contract does not disclaim knowledge concerning the actual number of
foreign crossings or indicate that the quantity stated should not be relied on. Cf. I.O.I. Sys. Inc. v. City of
Cleveland, 615 S.W.2d 786, 789–90 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (holding that owner
was not liable for unforseen soil condition where contract provided that boring data provided by owner to
contractor was “not intended as anything other than a guide” and that the contractor was not relieved by
acceptance of the data from “his responsibility to inquire, investigate, and inspect the underground conditions
along the piping alignment.”). To the contrary, El Paso told MasTec to prepare a lump-sum bid from the
information given and that the scope of work was believed to be complete.

Here, as in Hollerbach, if El Paso wished to leave open the matter of foreign crossings to the independent
investigation of MasTec, El Paso could have simply left the due diligence provision out of the Contract. As
MasTec contends, by El Paso having written into the Contract that due diligence was used in locating the
foreign crossings on El Paso’s alignment sheets—a matter upon which El Paso might be presumed to speak
with knowledge and authority—MasTec had a right to rely on that information in preparing its bid. See
Hollerbach, 233 U.S. at 172, 34 S. Ct. at 556. (“In its positive assertion of the nature of this much of the work it
made a representation upon which the claimants had a right to rely without an investigation to prove its
falsity.”).

In sum, the caselaw demonstrates that a contractor is not precluded as a matter of law from recovering
against an owner, under a breach of contract theory, for defective specifications, notwithstanding lump-sum
and pre-bid investigation provisions in the contract, if the owner was in a better position to know whether its
specifications were sufficient for its intended scope of work and the contract evidences that the owner made
positive assurances concerning the reliability of those specifications. See id.; see IT Corp., 903 F.Supp. at
1120. Footnote Even when the contract places the risk of differing or unexpected site conditions on the
contractor, the contractor is not, as a matter of law, required to bear a risk that the bid documents
misrepresent the nature and amount of the work to be performed. Id. at 1116.

Applying the caselaw here, we conclude that MasTec is not precluded as a matter of law from recovery
against El Paso for the deficiencies in the alignment sheets, notwithstanding MasTec’s assumption of risk
under the Contract. The jury’s findings in questions one and three, that El Paso promised in the Contract that
it had exercised due diligence in locating the foreign crossings and that El Paso breached its promise by
providing specifications that were so grossly inaccurate that MasTec was damaged, are not immaterial. See
Tichacek, 997 S.W.2d at 172 (stating that trial court may disregard jury answer and enter judgment
notwithstanding the verdict if jury finding is immaterial and that finding is immaterial when it calls for finding
beyond province of jury, such as question of law).

Further, there is some evidence to support the jury’s answers. The evidence shows that, as part of the pre-bid
package, El Paso presented to MasTec the Contract, the specifications for the Project, and alignment sheets
purporting to show the foreign crossings in the pipeline right-of-way. The specifications, which were made part
of the Contract, provide that El Paso “will have exercised due diligence” in locating the foreign crossings. The
testimony shows that El Paso expressly informed MasTec at the pre-bid meeting that the scope of work was
believed to be complete and that it should prepare its bid based on the pre-bid documents. El Paso
recommended that MasTec conduct an aerial inspection of the pipeline corridor, and MasTec complied.

The jury heard testimony concerning the meaning of due diligence in the pipeline construction industry. Ross,
of El Paso, testified that he did not instruct Gullett to attempt to locate or mark any PVC or fiberglass lines;
that he did not inquire as to whether El Paso had any “one call” information cataloged; and did not attempt to
contact any of the landowners or other operating companies along the pipeline route—including Valero, who
had purchased the parallel pipeline in the same corridor from El Paso. The testimony showed that Valero’s
alignment sheets, which were subsequently used by MasTec to locate the crossings in and around El Paso’s
pipeline, showed most of the underground crossings at issue in this suit.

Hence, the evidence shows that El Paso defined the scope of work and made positive assurances that it had
used due diligence with regard to developing the specifications that El Paso instructed MasTec to use as a
basis for its bid. By making positive assurances, El Paso assumed some responsibility for the accuracy of the
specifications. MasTec was not in as good a position as El Paso to gather critical information concerning the
extent of the underground foreign crossings or to judge the sufficiency of the alignment sheets that El Paso
provided before submitting its bid. MasTec’s assumption of risk under the Contract was necessarily based on
the premise that El Paso was already performing under the Contract, namely, that it had performed the due
diligence it promised. We cannot conclude that there is no evidence to support the jury’s findings. See Tiller,
121 S.W.3d at 713.

Further, by reading Article 8.1(a)(7) to mean that MasTec globally assumed all risks associated with
unidentified foreign crossings renders meaningless El Paso’s assurances in the Specifications that it used due
diligence in locating those underground crossings. We cannot construe a contract in a manner that renders a
provision meaningless.

Having reviewed all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s findings, we conclude that the
findings were not immaterial or based on insufficient evidence. See Tiller, 121 S.W.3d at 713; Tichacek, 997 S.
W.2d at 172. We hold that the trial court’s granting of a JNOV was improper. See Wilson, 168 S.W.3d at 807.

Accordingly, we sustain Mastec’s sole issue.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the trial court erred by granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict on MasTec’s breach of
contract claim. We reverse the trial court’s judgment as to this claim and remand for entry of judgment
consistent with the jury’s verdict and for the assessment of attorney’s fees in favor of MasTec.

Laura Carter Higley

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Higley.

Justice Jennings, dissenting.