[Download] "Milford Power Company, Llc v. Alstom Power" by The Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Milford Power Company, Llc v. Alstom Power
- Author : The Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut
- Release Date : January 20, 2003
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 74 KB
Description
Argued March 19, 2003 Opinion The dispositive issue in this appeal 1 is whether the trial court, in denying a motion to dismiss, properly determined that the untimely notice of a force majeure event, issued pursuant to a provision in the commercial contract (contract) between the plaintiff, Milford Power Company, LLC, and the defendants, Alstom Power, Inc., and Black and Veatch Construction, Inc., gave rise to a justiciable controversy. We conclude that the trial court's determination was improper and, therefore, that the court did not have jurisdiction over the plaintiff's declaratory judgment action to consider whether the defendants properly had invoked the force majeure clause. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court's denial of the defendants' motion to dismiss was improper. The record reflects the following facts and procedural history. In February, 1999, the plaintiff and defendants entered into the contract in which, for a sum certain in excess of $230,000,000, the defendants agreed to provide the plaintiff with certain engineering, procurement and construction services related to the construction of an electric power generating plant in Milford. Integral to the project were two forty foot high heat recovery steam generators, one of which collapsed on February 2, 2000, during the course of construction, killing two workers, injuring two others and causing severe property damage. As a result of the accident, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) commenced an investigation and closed the site, halting construction in the area of one of the generators until March 7, 2000, and denying access to a second area until March 2, 2000, when OSHA approved the defendants' demolition and removal plan. By letter dated March 21, 2000, pursuant to § 9.5 of the contract, 2 the defendants provided the plaintiff with notice 3 that the incident and investigation constituted force majeure events, as defined by § 13.1 of the contract. 4 The notice did not include a claim under § 9.5 of the contract seeking changes in the time needed to complete the project or in the amount of compensation to be paid to the defendants. The plaintiffs rejected the notice, asserting that it was untimely and that neither the incident, nor the subsequent investigation, constituted a force majeure event under the contract. Thereafter, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-29 and Practice Book § 1755, 5 the plaintiff commenced this declaratory judgment action, seeking, inter alia, a judicial declaration that the notice letter had been untimely and a determination that the incident and subsequent investigation had not constituted a force majeure. The plaintiff claimed that a judicial declaration was necessary in order to allow the parties to ""ascertain their rights and duties under the Contract with respect to confirming the Contract Price and Substantial Completion Date."" 6