AT&T Corporation v. Jackson Utilities

Filing 71

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Court hereby renders judgment for AT&T. (See Document for Complete Details.) Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 5/24/2017. (ELL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
AT&T CORPORATION,

FILED
MAY 2 \ 2ot7
Cieri<:, u.s District Court
District Of Montana
Great Falls

CV-15-39-BU-BMM

Plaintiff,
vs.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

JACKSON UTILITIES, LLC,
Defendant.

The Court heard this matter, sitting without a jury, on December 5-8, 2016,
in Butte, Montana. Troy A. Glander and Steven R. Milch represented Plaintiff
AT&T Corporation. Patrick M. Sullivan represented Defendant Jackson Utilities,
LLC.
Having heard the evidence and reviewed the trial briefs of both parties, the
Court makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT

1.

Plaintiff AT&T Corporation ("AT&T") is incorporated in the state of

New York with its principal place of business located at One AT&T Way,
Bedminster, New Jersey 07470. AT&T is authorized to conduct business in
Montana.
2.

Defendant Jackson Utilities, LLC ("JU") is a limited liability company

registered in the state of Montana with its principal place of business located at
1

2411 Milkhouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana 59718. JU is authorized to do
business in Montana.
3.

The events leading to this lawsuit occurred in Gallatin County,

Montana.
4.

On July 27,2015, AT&T brought claims against JU for negligence

and negligence per se arising out of damage that AT&T sustained on August 1,
2013, to an AT&T underground long-haul facility, also known as a long-haul fiber
optic cable and conduit. AT&T alleged that the damage occurred while m used a
vibratory plow to excavate along the north side of Churchill Road, between its
intersections with Anderson Road and Highline Road, Gallatin County, Montana
(the "Damage Location").
5.

AT&T alleged that JU failed to call in the statutorily required dig-

ticket before excavating in the area. AT&T alleged that this failure caused JU to
excavate without a valid one-call dig-ticket. AT&T further alleged that despite this
failure, AT&T did locate and mark with flags AT&T's facilities at the Damage
Location. AT&T further alleged the markings placed by AT&T remained visible to

m and directly conflicted with the path that m ultimately chose to excavate. In the
alternative, to the extent that any of the markings were no longer visible, AT&T
alleged that JU negligently failed to call in the statutorily required refresh ticket
before excavating.
2

6.

JU denied that it failed to comply with the statutory obligations that

apply to excavators. JU denied that it failed to obtain a one-call dig ticket. JU
further denied that it had been negligent.
7.

JU alleged instead that AT&T had failed to locate and mark AT&T's

underground facility at the Damage Location as required by the applicable
Montana statutes in spite of its receipt of the one-call ticket and its actual
knowledge that JU would excavate in that specific area. JU alleged that AT&T's
failure to comply with Montana statutory locating requirements and the negligence
of AT&T's locator actually caused the damage to AT&T's underground facility.
8.

AT&T and CenturyLink owned underground facilities, as defmed by

Mont. Code Ann. § 69-4-501{l5)(a), that cross near the Damage Location.
9.

Montana Opticom hired Pauley Construction ("Pauley") as the general

contractor to install miles of fiber-optic facilities in Gallatin County.
10.

Pauley hired various subcontractors, including JU, to install segments

of the fiber-optic facilities.
11.

Pauley hired JU to install the fiber-optic facilities across a span of

approximately 8,000 feet that ran along Churchill Road from its intersection with
Norris Road to its intersection with Highline Road (the "Project").
12.

Work on the Project began at Norris Road (the southernmost location)

and extended northward toward Highline Road.
3

13.

Montana Opticom hired Kadmus, Lee and Jackson ("KLJ"), an

engineering firm, to monitor and document the work performed by Pauley and its
subcontractors, among other things. KLJ documented work on the Project on a
daily basis.
14.

On June 26, 2013, Pauley placed a call to the one-call notification

center and requested the issuance of a one-call ticket. The one call notification
center issued a one-call ticket, ticket no. 13049798 (the "Pauley Ticket"), with a
work start date of June 29, 2013. The "Location of work" identified in the Pauley
Ticket provided as follows: "WITHIN APPROX [sic] 50 FOOT RADIUS OF
HOUSE PLUS GOING SOUTHWEST DOWN BOTH SIDES OF ANDERSON
RD. APPROX [sic] 300 FEET TO INTERSECTION OF CHURCHILL ROAD
AND APPROX [sic] 100 FEET ON NORTH SIDE OF CHURCHILL GOING
WEST FROM THE EAST."
15.

AT&T's Al Malin ("Malin") located and marked AT&T's facilities

that existed on the north side of Churchill Road in response to the Pauley Ticket.
These AT&T facilities started at Anderson Road and crossed over Highline Road.
Malin used industry-standard orange flags to demarcate AT&T's
telecommunications line.
16.

CenturyLink had contracted with ELM Locating & Utility Services

("ELM") before the Pauley Ticket. ELM agreed to locate and mark CenturyLink's
4

facilities in response to one-call tickets for an area that included the Damage
Location.
17.

ELM located and marked CenturyLink's facilities in response to the

Pauley Ticket. ELM started at the house referenced above. ELM proceeded
southwest down Anderson Road to Churchill Road. ELM then turned west on
Churchill Road for 100 feet toward Highline Road. ELM used industry-standard
orange flags to demarcate CenturyLink's telecommunications line.
18.

ELM and Malin generally employed differing marking techniques.

Malin typically located and marked AT&T's facilities at various locations along
the route only where he anticipated that AT&T's facilities would come in conflict
with JU's planned excavation work. Malin did not mark AT&T's facilities
continuously. Malin's approach differed from ELM's locating practices of marking
CenturyLink's utilities along the entire route.
19.

Dayton Jackson testified that it was not unusual to see AT&T's locate

marks stop at one spot and then begin again at another place.
20.

Malin took no photographs ofhis locate marks along Churchill Road

in response to the Pauley Ticket. ELM followed its usual practice ofphotographing
the locate marks in response to the Pauley Ticket. JU's retained expert, Walt Kelly,
testified that taking photographs after marking comports with the industry standard
to document the work.
5

21.

JU placed a call to the one-call notification center on July 17, 2013, to

request the issuance of a one-call ticket. The one-call notification center issued a
one-call ticket, ticket no. 13057738 (the "JU Ticket"), with a work start date of
July 20,2013. The "Location of work" identified in the JU Ticket started at
Churchill Rd. with the nearest intersecting street of Norris Road and detailed as
follows: "EXCAVATION SITE IS ON THE E SIDE OF THE ROAD. LOCATED
4000FT N OF THE INTERSECTION. MARK 4000FT N OF THE EAST ROAD
RIGHT OF WAY. AREA WILL BE MARKED WITH WHITE FLAGS."
22.

AT&T received the JU Ticket on that same day.

23.

Malin testified that, in response to the JU Ticket, he marked 4,000 feet

going north from the intersection of Churchill Road and Norris Road. He
interpreted the JU Ticket as beginning at the intersection of the two roads and
stopping at a point 4,000 feet north of the intersection.
24.

Malin did not locate the area between Anderson Road and Highline

Road in response to the JU Ticket due to his view that the route described in the m
Ticket terminated at a point 4,000 feet north of the intersection of Churchill Road
and Norris Road.
25.

ELM responded to the JU Ticket on behalf of CenturyLink. Rainor

Kjelsrud (a brother of two JU employees) served as the locator for ELM. Kjelsrud
testified that the JU Ticket covered the area that began at a point 4,000 feet north
6

of the intersection of Churchill Road and Norris Road, and extending north another
4,000 feet from that point. As he explained, "I would go 4,000 feet from the
intersection [Churchill and Norris] and start locating from there and then go an
additional 4,000 feet."
26.

ELM's records do not indicate whether ELM located between

Anderson Road and Highline Road. Kjelsrud testified that he did not complete the
JU Ticket response due to time constraints. Kjelsrud admitted that he did not locate
the CenturyLink facilities past Anderson Road, despite what he conceded as the
clear instruction in the JU Ticket to do so. Kjelsrud further testified that he spoke
directly with JU crew employees who confirmed the proposed route.
27.

Both AT&T's and JU's retained experts testified that they understood

the JU Ticket similar to how Rainor Kjelsrud interpreted it.
28.

AT&T's retained expert, Shane Linse, testified that the ticket "says

that the work is going to start 4,000 feet north of [the] intersection [of Churchill
and Norris] .... [S]o if you went from Churchill and Norris Road, and you went
4,000 foot north, you should - according to this ticket, you should see an area
marked with white flags, and that's where I would locate it." When questioned by
defense counsel, if then he would "mark 4,000 feet north. So, at that point you'd go
4,000 feet north; is that correct?" Linse answered, "Uhm, yes."
29.

JU's retained expert, Walt Kelly, testified that upon examining the JU
7

Ticket, "I determined that the location started on Churchill Road, approximately
4,000 feet north of the Norris Road, and continued going north to about 500 feet
past the Highline Road."
30.

KLJ staked the planned route of excavation along Churchill Road,

starting at its intersection with Norris Road and moving north on July 22,2013.
31.

A representative of JU drove the route staked by KLJ along Churchill

Road starting at Norris Road and moving north.
32.

JU performed excavation work along Churchill Road starting at

Norris Road and moving north. JU experienced delays in completing the work,
however, as other projects took their manpower. As a result, JU did not complete
the excavation work on Churchill Road around its intersection with Anderson Road
until about two weeks after having called in the JU Ticket on July 17,2013.
33.

Malin spoke with representatives of JU and KLJ in connection with

the excavation activities on Churchill Road before August 1,2013. The JU and
KLJ representatives informed Malin that JU would be excavating all the way to
Highline Road. Thus, the information imparted from the JU employees to Malin
provided him with direct knowledge of JU' s activity in the Damage Area, separate
and apart from the information contained in the JU Ticket. This information should
have clarified any ambiguity about JU's proposed work area contained in the JU
Ticket.
8

34.

Malin testified that he was present on July 24, 2013, when JV

performed the bore under Anderson Road north of Churchill Road. Malin
confronted the JV employees about working in the area without what he perceived
to be a valid one-call ticket.
35.

Malin testified that the m employees responded that they possessed a

valid ticket to perform the work. Malin recalled that the JV employees relied for
authorization for the excavation work either through the Pauley Ticket or the JV
Ticket. Malin claims to have refreshed the flags that he had placed for the Pauley
Ticket between Anderson Road and Highline Road at that time.
36.

JV bored from a point southeast of Anderson Road to a point

northwest of Anderson Road.
37.

Dayton Jackson served as the foreman of the JV crew that was

excavating along Churchill Road toward Highline Road.
38.

Jackson was present with the crew on the morning of August 1,2013.

The crew included JV employees Aaron Notarius and Sven Kjelsrud.
39.

Jackson left Notarius and Sven Kjelsrud to use the vibratory plow to

excavate from the location of the bore just northwest of Anderson Road over to
Highline Road. Neither Notarius nor Sven Kjelsrud ever had operated the
vibratory plow. Jackson gave Sven Kjelsrud some instruction on how to use the
vibratory plow. Jackson instructed Notarius to be on the ground to look out for

9

potential problems.
40.

Notarius testified that "the flags that were there that day struck

concern in me." He said he was concerned about the two flags that "jumped the
road," referring to the dirt path that ran north of, and parallel to, Churchill Road
between Anderson Road and Highline Road.
41.

Notarius testified that as far as he could tell "there was no way to

know" whether any of the flags that were "going along the fence" marked the same
utility that was marked by the flags in the "line going along the other side of the
[dirt] path."
42.

Notarius explained that he remembered "thinking that it was very

strange that there was a line of flags along the fence" and then "two flags on the
other side of this path, and then they just stopped. It was like lines don't just stop in
the middle of a field along the side of the road." He testified that "[i]t didn't make
sense ..."
43.

Ken Kiefer ofKLJ testified that he also saw the flags south of the

excavation path. Kiefer contradicted Malin's claim of having refreshed the flags
south of the excavation path on July 24,2013. In fact, Kiefer characterized the
flags as being bent and laying on their sides.
44.

Kiefer further noted the inconsistency in the distance between the

flags. Kiefer observed that the flags failed to mark the path clearly. Kiefer
10

mistakenly assumed that JU had talked to AT&T about ambiguous flags. Kiefer
explained that his job required him simply to observe and document what he saw,
and nothing more.
45.

Notarius testified that he called Jackson before they started using the

vibratory plow in the Damage Location due to his concern about the confusing
flags. He told Jackson that "we need to check this out a little bit more." Notarius
testified that Jackson responded that he "needed guys that were go-getters."
46.

Shane Linse, AT&T's retained expert, testified that, in his experience,

the reasonable course of action before digging is to call in the locates and then to
"verify everything in the ground" by looking closely at all of the flags.
47.

Sven Kjelsrud continued to operate the plow along the excavation

path despite his misgivings about the confusing flags.
48.

At approximately 4:10 p.m., August 1,2013, the plow operated by JU

employees Sven Kjelsrud and Aaron Notarius, struck an underground facility
owned by AT&T at the Damage Location. Kjelsrud and Notarius did not know that
they had struck the facility. They believed instead that the plow had become stuck.
They stopped work for the day with plans to resume work the following morning.
49.

AT&T's equipment received alarms indicating that AT&T's facilities

had lost their signal between Bozeman and Three Forks.
50.

AT&T retained Fiberline, Inc., to repair the damaged cable. Shane
11

Linse of Fiberline brought a crew to the Damage Location on August 2,2013, to
assist with the repairs.
51.

The damaged underground facility consisted of a 192-count fiber

optic cable that was approximately 30,208 feet long.
52.

For the permanent repair, AT&T replaced approximately 10,000 feet

of the cable and added one field splice to the cable.
53.

Fiberline, Inc. discovered a broken splice vault during the repair

process that was located several thousand feet from the Damage Location. The
damage to that splice vault appeared to have occurred before August 1,2013, and
appeared to have been unrelated to the damage to the AT&T cable caused by JU's
excavation.
54.

AT&T tested the cable after the repairs to the cable had been made.

The test results showed that the repaired cable satisfied AT&T's operating
requirements and specifications, including attenuation specifications. AT&T
approved and accepted the repairs.
55.

Veman Hogge, JU's retained expert, testified as to the reasonableness

of those repairs. Hogge agreed that JU's strike of AT&T's cable required
replacement of the 10,000 foot section under the circumstances. These
circumstances included the ready availability of the 10,000 foot replacement cable
and the ability to add only a single splice.
12

56.

AT&T mailed a claim for damages to JU at an incorrect address on

July 10,2015. The Claim for Damages stated that AT&T's damages relating to the
incident totaled $253,279.34.AT&T requested payment for that amount. JV did not
receive the claim until after AT&T filed this action.
57.

AT&T's damages expert, Gerry Harvey, testified during trial that

AT&T actually incurred other necessary and reasonable expenses. Harvey testified
that those repairs, not included in the initial bill, brought the total expenditures to
$284,743.34.
58.

Fiberline invoiced AT&T for a total of $208,566. One of the Fiberline

invoices included, however, the unrelated cost to repair the previously damaged
splice vault box in the sum of $2,500. The removal of the unrelated $2,500 repair
to the splice vault box leaves the total Fiberline repair expenses related solely to the
damaged cable at $206,066.
59.

AT&T also produced a bill for the material cost of the replaced cable

in the sum of $31 ,405. JU presented no evidence to challenge the reasonableness of
the price for the replacement cable.
60.

The need to add a splice into AT&T's network in order to fix the

immediate problem caused by the cable strike created optical loss at the point of
the splice. This optical loss proved impossible to eliminate.
61.

The splice also created an increased risk of mechanical failure. The
13

cable at issue had been rated to withstand 600 pounds of tensile force. The cable
with the splice case, by contrast, now has been rated to withstand only about 100
pounds of tensile force. Moreover, the splice case sits it an enclosure that remains
subject to water intrusion and freezing. Both water intrusion and freezing can
negatively impact the performance ofthe fiber.
62.

AT&T designed this route for only six splices. The addition ofthe

seventh splice has increased the risk of mechanical failure by 15%. AT&T
provided no cost estimates to account for the effects of the seventh splice.
63.

AT&T instead has claimed that the best fix would be to replace the

entire 30,208 foot cable to eliminate this new seventh splice. Harvey concluded
that the total cost of performing the repairs with the complete replacement of the
30,208 foot cable instead of the segmented repair would be at least $386,288.74.
64.

AT &T produced no evidence to establish expenses incurred for FCC

Reporting fees or loss of use.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.

This Court possesses jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because AT&T is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of New York with its principal place of business located in New Jersey.
JU is a limited liability company established under the laws ofthe State of
Montana having its principal place of business in Montana.
14

2.

Venue is proper in the Butte Division of this Court because all or a

substantial part of the cause of action arose in Gallatin County, Montana and the
Defendant conducts substantial business in Gallatin County.
3.

Negligence involves "the failure to do what a reasonable and prudent

person would ordinarily have done under the circumstances of the situation, or
doing what such a person under the existing circumstances would not have done."
Kakos v. Byram, 292 P. 909, 912 (Mont. 1930) (internal citations omitted).
4.

To maintain a negligence action, a plaintiff must prove duty, breach,

causation, and damages. Fisher v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc., 181 P.3d 601,606
(Mont. 2008).
5.

AT&T cannot assert an independent common law negligence claim

against JU because the Montana Dig Law, codified at Mont. Code Ann. § 69-4-501
et seq., preempts any common law duties or remedies in these circumstances. The
Montana Dig Law imposes statutory duties upon excavators and locators, and
provides remedies for damage to facilities. See Mont. Code Ann. § 1-1-108 ("In
this state there is no common law in any case where the law is declared by
statute."); Meech v. Hil/haven West, Inc., 776 P.2d 488,494-495 (Mont 1989).
6.

AT&T's negligence per se claim persists under the Montana Dig Law.

Mont. Code Ann. § 69-4-501 et seq. Negligence per se simply involves negligence
that is established as a matter of law and usually arises from a statutory violation.
15

Giambra v. Kelsey, 162 P.3d 134, 144 (Mont. 2007) (internal citation omitted).
7.

In Montana, to establish negligence per se, a plaintiff must prove five

elements: (1) the defendant violated a particular statute; (2) the statute was
enacted to protect a specific class of persons; (3) the plaintiff is a member of that
class; (4) the plaintiffs injury is the sort the statute was enacted to prevent; and (5)
the statute was intended to regulate a member of defendant's class. Edie v. Gray,
121 P.3d 516,520 (Mont. 2005).
8.

The Montana Legislature enacted the Montana Dig Law to protect

underground facility owners such as AT&T from damage to their property, and to
protect contractors such as JU from liability for damages. The Montana Dig Law
exists to prevent the sort of injury that AT&T suffered in this case. The Montana
Dig Law was intended to regulate contractors such as JU. The Court discusses JU's
and AT&Ts violations of the Montana Dig Law in more detail below. Negligence
per se applies in this case.
9.

Once a plaintiff proves the existence of negligence per se, it still must

prove causation in order to recover damages. Olson v. Shumaker Trucking and

Excavating Contractors, Inc., 196 P.3d 1265, 1277 (Mont. 2008).
10.

Montana applies modified comparative negligence. See Mont. Code

Ann. §§ 27-1-702 and -703. Under this doctrine, a claimant whose negligence
exceeds the negligence of the defendant recovers no damages. Id.; see City of
16

Whitefish v. Jentile 285 P.3d 515, 519 (Mont. 2012). If a claimant's negligence
equals or falls below that of the defendant, the claimant will recover only the
percentage of damages attributed to the defendant. Id.
11.

The comparative negligence doctrine applies to a claim for negligence

per se. Giambra, 162 P.3d at 145.
12.

Mont. Code Ann. § 69-4-503 provides:
(1) Before beginning an excavation, the excavator shall notify, through a

one-call notification center, all owners of underground facilities in the
area of the proposed excavation.

(2) After an excavator has notified the appropriate one-call notification
center of a proposed excavation, an owner of an underground facility
shall:
(a) provide the locates and mark the location within 2 business days;
or
(b) respond immediately if the excavator notifies the one-call
notification center that an emergency exists.
(3) (a) After an owner of an underground facility has located and marked
the underground facilities, the excavator shall determine if weather,
time, or other factors may have affected location marks, warranting
relocation of the facilities.
17

(b) If excavation has not occurred within 30 days of the locate and
mark, the excavator shall request that the facility be relocated and
remarked before excavating unless other arrangements have been made
with the underground facility owner. The excavator is responsible for
costs associated with relocating and remarking a facility that is not
excavated within 30 days of the locate and mark.
(4) Upon receipt of the notice provided for in this section, the owner of
the underground facility shall provide the excavator with reasonably
accurate information as to the owner's locatable underground facilities by
surface locating and marking the location of the facilities. If there are
identified but unlocatable underground facilities, the owner of the
facilities shall provide the excavator with the best available information
as to their locations. An excavator may not excavate until all known
facilities have been located and marked. An excavator is not responsible
for damages to an underground facility that cannot be located by its
owner. Once the facilities are located and marked by the facility owner,
the excavator is responsible for maintaining the markings.
(5) Upon receipt of notice from the excavator, the facility owner shall
respond within 2 business days by locating and marking the facility or by
notifying the excavator that locating and marking is unnecessary. An
18

excavator may not begin excavating before the locating and marking is
complete or before the excavator is notified that locating and marking is
unnecessary.
(6) An excavator shall locate and mark the area to be excavated if
requested by the facility owner or the owner's representative. If an
excavator discovers an underground facility that has not been located and
marked, the excavator shall stop excavating in the vicinity of the facility
and notify the facility owner or the one-call notification center.
13. Mont. Code Ann. § 69-4-505 provides in pertinent part:
(1 )(a) If any underground facility is damaged by an excavator who has
failed to obtain information as to its location as provided in 69-4-503,
then the excavator is liable to the owner ofthe underground facility for
the entire cost of the repair of the facility ...
(2) Payment of costs and fees described in this section is due within 30
days of billing by the owner of the underground facility. The
underground facility owner may enforce collection in a court of
competent jurisdiction.
(3) If information requested pursuant to 69-4-503 is not provided within
the time specified in that section, excavators damaging or injuring
underground facilities are not liable for that damage or injury, unless
19

caused by their negligence ...
(4) The act of obtaining information as required by this part does not
excuse an excavator making any excavation from doing so in a careful
and prudent manner, nor does it excuse the excavator from liability for
any damage or injury resulting from the excavator's negligence.
14.

JU called in a valid ticket, the JU Ticket, to the one-call notification

center on July 17,2013. This ticket complied with the requirements of Mont. Code
Ann. § 69-4-503, in that it described the location of work and provided notice to
facility owners of the impending work.
15.

The JV Ticket covered the Damage Location between Anderson Road

and Highline Road. The JU ticket directed facility owners to mark their facilities
beginning 4,000 feet north of the intersection of Norris Road and Churchill Road,
and to continue 4,000 feet from that intersection. Rainor Kjelsrud confirmed this
interpretation of the Location of Work in the JV Ticket and the Court agrees that
description of the Location of Work in the JV Ticket satisfied the notice
requirements of Mont. Code Ann. § 69-4-503(1).
16.

Malin apparently misunderstood the description of the Location of

Work in the JV Ticket. As a result of this apparent misunderstanding, Malin did not
properly perform locating services in response to that ticket within two business
days after AT&T received it, as required by Mont. Code Ann. § 69-4-503(5).
20

17.

Malin's violation of Mont. Code Ann. § 69-4-503(5) establishes

negligence per se on the part of AT&T.
18.

Further, Malin's practice of marking only perceived potential conflict

areas proved problematic and not reasonable in this instance. Malin also failed to
heed the information provided by JU's work crew on July 24,2013, that JU
intended to excavate in the Damage Area.
19.

AT&T failed to act as a reasonable facility owner would have acted

under similar circumstances. AT&T should have responded to any perceived
ambiguity in the description of the Location of Work in the JU Ticket by seeking
clarification from JU. JU's work crew provided Malin with this clarification on
July 24,2013, when they informed Malin that JU intended to excavate in the
Damage Area.
20.

AT&T's failure to adequately mark the location in response to the

one-call ticket gives rise to liability. See, e.g., Mills v. Mather, 890 P.2d 1277,
1283-84 (Mont. 1995) (holding that failure to act can form the basis for a
negligence claim). This failure contributed to the damages to AT&T's underground
facility.
21.

Under Mont. Code Ann. § 69-4-505(3), JU would not be liable for

having damaged AT&T's facilities because AT&T failed to respond properly to the
JU Ticket. This outcome assumes that JU did not act negligently in the
21

performance of its work at the Damage Location.
22.

It appears, however, that JU violated the provisions of Mont. Code

Ann. § 69-4-503, when it proceeded with its excavation in the face of confusing
markers at the Damage Location.
23.

Based on evidence presented during trial, the excavation crew of

Notarius and Sven Kjelsrud likely encountered a combination of new and old
markers at the Damage Location. These new and old markers likely arose from
earlier work on the Pauley Ticket and Malin's more recent efforts on the JU Ticket.
The Pauley markings were over a month old at the time and should have been
relocated and remarked, as required by Mont. Code Ann. § 69-4-503(3)(b).
24.

Further, under Mont. Code Ann. § 69-4-503(3)(a), JU possessed

responsibility to determine whether "weather, time, or other factors may have
affected location marks, warranting relocation of the facilities."
25.

Mont. Code Ann. § 69-4-503(6), required JU to "stop excavating in

the vicinity of the facility and notify the facility owner or the one-call notification
center," when the excavation crew "discover[ed] an underground facility ha[d] not
been located and marked." A reasonable operator under these circumstances would
have stopped when it suspected that an underground facility had not been properly
located and marked.
26.

JU's violations of Mont. Code Ann. § 69-4-503 establish negligence
22

per se.
27.

JU failed to act as a reasonable operator would have acted under

similar circumstances. A reasonable operator would have stopped its work once it
encountered the confusing flags. A reasonable operator would have sought
clarification as to the meaning of the confusing flags. JU instead unreasonably
chose to act as "go-getters" and to continue its excavation.
28.

JU proceeded to plow in spite of the possibility that the facilities were

not properly marked. This action gives rise to liability. An analogous situation
arose in Okland v. Wolf, 850 P.2d 302, 307 (Mont. 1993). There the court imposed
50 percent liability on a driver who operated his car in his own lane of travel at a
lawful speed, but failed to keep a lookout for a bicyclist entering the street from an
alley. The driver agreed that he could have seen a substantial part ofthe alley from
where the out-of-control bicyclist was coming. The driver failed to see the out-of­
control bicyclist, however, due to the fact that he and the passenger were chatting
and as a result he took evasive action too late. Id.; see also Sorrells v. Ryan, 281
P.2d 1028, 1030 (Mont. 1955) (highlighting the fact that a pedestrian illegally
crossing the street outside of a crosswalk did not absolve a driver from the duty to
exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring the pedestrian). JU's actions in
proceeding to excavate in the face of the confusing flags violated the Montana Dig
Law and contributed to the damages sustained by AT&T to its underground
23

facility.
29.

It appears that both parties acted unreasonably in this case and these

actions rise to per se negligence under the Montana Dig Law.
30.

The repairs that Fiberline, Inc. actually made to AT&T's damaged

cable met industry standards and were sufficient to repair the damaged cable.
31.

Mont. Code Ann. § 69-4-505, limits AT&T's recoverable damages to

the entire cost of repair.
32.

The total Fiberline repair expenses related to the cable strike were

$206,066.
33.

AT&T produced a bill for the material cost of the replaced cable in

the sum of$31,405.
34.

AT&T failed to provide sufficient evidence to support replacement of

the entire 30,208 foot segment of cable. The record demonstrates that the repairs
performed by Fiberline, including the use of the approximately 10,000 foot cable
and the addition of the seventh splice, met AT&T's operating requirements and
specifications, including attenuation specifications. As a result, AT&T's total
recoverable damages proved at trial stands at $237,471.00.
35.

The Court determines that ru's negligence in proceeding to excavate

in the face of the confusing flags at the Damage Location leaves them liable for
65% of the damages. The Court determines that AT&T bears responsibility for
24

35% of the damages based on its failure to take reasonable steps to clarify the work
location described in the m Ticket and failing to heed the information provided to
Malin by JU's work crew that JU intended to excavate in the Damage Location.
36.

The Court apportions greater liability to m to reflect the

unreasonableness of JU's decision to proceed with its excavation in the face of the
confusing flags in the Damage Location. Okland, 850 P.2d at 307. A few telephone
calls by JU to seek clarification of the location of the AT&T and CenturyLink
underground facilities could have avoided the problem entirely. JU's breach of its
duty to avoid existing underground facilities outweighs AT&T's breach of its duty
to properly mark the location of its underground facilities.
37.

AT&T seeks an award of prejudgment interest against JU. Mont.

Code Ann. § 27-1-210 and § 27-1-211, provide for an award of prejudgment
interest under certain circumstances. In general, the two statutes require that the
party must be seeking damages that are capable of being made certain by
calculation. Mont. Petroleum Tank Release Compo Rd.

V.

Crumleys, Inc., 174 P.3d

948, 965 (Mont. 2008).
38.

Unlike a personal injury case where the amount of damages remains

uncertain until a jury makes an award, AT&T's damages could be calculated.
AT&T undertook repair activities immediately after JU damaged its cable. AT&T
attempted unsuccessfully to notify JU of it claim for $253,279.34 in its letter of
25

July 10,2015. AT&T filed this action on July 27,2105.
39.

AT&T attempted to calculate its damages on the actual cost of repair

of its cable. AT&T admittedly included in its claim the $2,500 spent by Fiberline
to repair a damaged splice vault box unrelated to JU's negligence. In fact, JU's
retained expert, Veman Hogge, attested to the reasonableness of AT&T's repairs.
40.

AT&T's initial claimed amount of$253,279.34 further comports with

the Ninth Circuit's analysis of Montana law in Transamerica Premier Ins. Co. v.

Miller, 41 F.3d 438 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court affirmed an award of pre-judgment
interest even though the prevailing party could not establish a damages amount
until the date of the amended judgment. The Court noted that the ability to
calculate the damages to make an "appraisal" of damages possible satisfied the
requirements of Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-211. Transamerica Premier, 41 F.3d at
446, citing Northern Montana Hosp. v. Knight, 811 P.2d 1276,1282 (Mont. 1991).
41.

By contrast, the Court in Jim's Excavating Services, Inc. v. HKM

Associates, 878 P.2d 248 (Mont. 1994), denied prejudgment interest where a
contractor failed to offer evidence before trial regarding how it intended to
calculate damages caused by delays and extra work on a project. The court further
noted that the contractor sought $510,899.00 damages at trial, but the jury awarded
only $381,000.00. Id. at 261.
42.

AT&T admittedly requested more at trial than the Court has awarded.
26

Much of this discrepancy arises from AT&T's claim for the cost of replacing the
entire 30,208 foot section of cable as opposed to the repairs actually undertaken.
No doubt existed, however, that the parties could calculate the cost of the various
repair options.
43.

The remaining discrepancy in AT&T's claimed amount and the

amount awarded by the Court results from AT&T's comparative negligence. This
issue proves problematic for AT&T. The court in McPherson v. Schlemmer, 749
P.2d 51 (Mont. 1988), affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest based on the fact
that "no monetary obligation existed until the jury determined the degree of
comparative negligence." McPherson, 749 P.2d at 54. The court reasoned that no
monetary obligation would have existed on the part of the defendant if the jury had
found the plaintiff 50 percent negligent or more. Id. The jury apportioned the
plaintiff's liability at 30 percent. Id.
44.

JU contested liability in its answer and at trial. JU defended, in large

part, based on its claim that AT&T had failed to comply with the marking
requirements of the Montana Dig Law. No monetary obligation existed for JU until
the Court determined the degree of comparative negligence, if any, on the part of
AT&T, under the reasoning of McPherson. AT&T's claim for prejudgment interest
must fail as a matter of law.

27

JUDGMENT & ORDER

45.

The Court hereby renders judgment for AT&T.

46.

The Court orders that AT&T recover damages from JU in the sum of

$154,356.15.
47.

The Court further orders that each party shall bear its own costs and

attorney's fees.
48.

The Court further orders that AT&T recover from JU post-judgment

interest on the full amount of the judgment at the annual rate of 10% accruing from
the date that the judgment is entered. Mont. Code. Ann. § 27-1-210. Prejudgment
interest is not available because damages were not certain until this judgment.
Mont. Code. Ann. § 27-1-211.
49.

This judgment is final and disposes of all claims and all parties and is

appealable.
50.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court orders that the Clerk of Court

enter judgment by separate document according to the terms outlined above. The
Clerk of Court shall notify the parties of the making of this order.
DATED this 24th day of May, 2017.

Brian Morris
United States District Court Judge

28