Danisco Ingredients USA, Inc. v. Kansas City Power & Light Co.
Decision Date | 09 July 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 82,266.,82,266. |
Citation | 986 P.2d 377,267 Kan. 760 |
Parties | DANISCO INGREDIENTS USA, INC., Appellee, v. KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Robert Gingrich, of Kansas City, Missouri, argued the cause, and Michael A. Rump, of Kansas City, Missouri, was with him on the briefs for appellant.
C. Edward Peterson, of Finnegan, Conrad & Peterson, L.C., of Kansas City, Missouri, argued the cause, and Jeremiah D. Finnegan, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for appellee. The opinion of the court was delivered by
The Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals seeks clarification of Kansas law regarding liability limitations contained in tariffs adopted by Kansas City Power & Light (KCP&L) and approved by the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC). The tariffs purport to relieve KCP&L from liability for both simple negligence and wanton misconduct. The questions certified under the Kansas Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, K.S.A. 60-3201 et seq., concern both the reasonableness and enforcement of these tariffs.
Answer to certified questions
It was reasonable for the KCC to allow KCP&L's Rules 7.06 and 7.12 to become effective insofar as these rules relieve KCP&L of liability for damages of any nature resulting from the utility's own simple negligence. However, it was unreasonable for the KCC to allow the same rules to relieve KCP&L of liability for damages of any nature resulting from the utility's willful or wanton misconduct. The Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals should enforce the limitations of liability contained in Rules 7.06 and 7.12 as to simple negligence only.
The following factual statement was set out by the Missouri Court of Appeals pursuant to K.S.A. 60-3203:
The Missouri Court of Appeals stated with regard to the questions certified:
KCP&L contends that our scope of review as to the reasonableness of limitations contained in tariff Rules 7.06 and 7.12 is governed by the Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions (KJRA), K.S.A. 77-601 et seq. Specifically, KCP&L argues that our scope of review is governed by K.S.A. 77-621(c)(8), which provides that the court may reverse an agency decision if it determines "the agency action is otherwise unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious." Thus, according to KCP&L's argument, the question on appeal is whether the KCC's approval of the liability limitations in Rules 7.06 and 7.12 was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Danisco contends that the KJRA is inapplicable in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burnett v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, 96,793.
...by definition, turn on legal issues, this court's review of such questions is unlimited. Danisco Ingredients USA, Inc. v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 267 Kan. 760, 764-65, 986 P.2d 377 (1999). Furthermore, the interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which this court has unl......
-
Bank of Am. v. Narula
...for the rights of others with a total indifference to the consequences. [Citation omitted.]” Danisco Ingredients USA, Inc. v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 267 Kan. 760, 772, 986 P.2d 377 (1999). Orf showed a reckless disregard for the Narulas' rights when he “engaged in a secret strategy ......
-
Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co.
...Commission, it binds both the utility and the customer and governs their relationship. See Danisco Ingredients USA, Inc. v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 267 Kan. 760, 765, 986 P.2d 377, 381 (1999). Once the Commission approves a tariff, it "is a law, not a contract, and has the force and ......
-
Sheffler v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
...their relationship. Adams, 211 Ill.2d at 55, 284 Ill.Dec. 302, 809 N.E.2d 1248, citing Danisco Ingredients USA, Inc. v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 267 Kan. 760, 765, 986 P.2d 377 (1999). Once the Commission approves a tariff, it "is a law, not a contract, and has the force and effect of......
-
CLIMATE RISK IN THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR: LEGAL OBLIGATIONS TO ADVANCE CLIMATE RESILIENCE PLANNING BY ELECTRIC UTILITIES.
...limitation on liability for negligence provision). (564) E.g., Danisco Ingredients USA, Inc. v. Kan. City Power & Lighting Co., 986 P.2d 377, 384-85 (Kan. 1999) (noting that "Kansas [has] follow[ed] the majority rule"); Bulbman, Inc. v. Nev. Bell, 825 P.2d 588, 592-93 (Nev. 1992) (affir......