Hynix Semiconductor Mfg. Am., Corp. v. Eugene Water & Elec. Bd.
Decision Date | 03 February 2016 |
Docket Number | 161218054,A154528. |
Citation | 367 P.3d 927,276 Or.App. 228 |
Parties | HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA, a California corporation; Hyundai Marine & Fire Insurance Company Limited, a Korean public limited company; and Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, a foreign insurance syndicate, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. EUGENE WATER & ELECTRIC BOARD, an Oregon public utility, Defendant–Respondent. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Larry E. Altenbrun argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Nicoll Black & Feig, PLLC.
Eric S. DeFreest, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Luvaas Cobb.
Before ORTEGA, Presiding Judge, and LAGESEN, Judge, and GARRETT, Judge.
Hynix, a semiconductor manufacturing facility, entered into a contract (Power Sales Agreement) with defendant, Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), to purchase all of the electricity requirements for Hynix's Eugene facility. Hynix and its insurers (plaintiffs) subsequently brought an action for breach of contract for damages sustained by that facility during a 2007 power outage. The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal after denying plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granting EWEB's cross-motion for summary judgment. On appeal, plaintiffs assign error to the trial court's summary judgment rulings, in which the court concluded that the Power Sales Agreement between Hynix and EWEB relieved EWEB from liability for a power interruption which occurred in 2007, and that plaintiffs were not entitled to prejudgment interest in the event that their claims were successful. We write only to address plaintiffs' first and third assignments of error, which involve the issue of whether plaintiffs' or EWEB's proposed interpretation of the contract as to liability in the event of a power interruption is correct as a matter of law.
Plaintiffs argue that the only reasonable interpretation of the agreement is that EWEB was liable to Hynix for damages resulting from interruptions of power that, like the 2007 outage, occurred due to causes within EWEB's reasonable control. EWEB responds that, to the contrary, the only reasonable interpretation of the contract is that the agreement relieved EWEB from liability in the event of any interruption of power, including the 2007 power outage. We agree with EWEB that the contract unambiguously relieved it from liability for the 2007 outage. We therefore affirm the trial court's summary judgment rulings.1
Where, as here, a case was resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment, and the losing party assigns error both to the grant of summary judgment to the other party and to the denial of its own motion for summary judgment, we review to determine "whether there are any disputed issues of material fact and whether either party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Vision Realty, Inc. v. Kohler, 214 Or.App. 220, 222, 164 P.3d 330 (2007). In this case, the facts are undisputed; the only issue before us is one of law.
In 2006, Hynix entered into a Power Sales Agreement with EWEB which required EWEB to sell, and Hynix to purchase, all of the electricity needed for Hynix's semiconductor manufacturing facility in Eugene. Both parties were aware that an unexpected interruption of electrical power could damage Hynix's manufacturing equipment and products. In order to supply power to the facility, EWEB owned and maintained an Interconnection Facility that housed its electrical equipment. Part of the Interconnection Facility was located on Hynix's property, but access to that area was restricted without an EWEB escort.
The parties had entered into similar agreements in 1996 and 2001. However, the parties negotiated a modification to the limitation of liability term in Section IX.A of the 2006 agreement. That section states:
(Boldface in original; emphases added.)
In December 2007, Hynix learned about a water leak in the roof of the Interconnection Facility. EWEB had been aware that there was a leak in the roof for more than a year, and had placed a tarp over the electrical equipment in the vicinity of the leak. The following day, upon Hynix's request, an EWEB employee began installing a drip guard above the equipment. EWEB did not schedule a planned interruption of service and did not provide Hynix with advance notice of a power interruption. While EWEB's employees were installing the drip guard, an unplanned loss of electrical power occurred which resulted in damage to Hynix's products and equipment.
Plaintiffs brought a breach of contract action against EWEB and ultimately moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that, as a matter of law, EWEB was contractually liable to Hynix for damages caused power interruptions that were within EWEB's reasonable control, and that the 2007 power outage was within EWEB's reasonable control. Plaintiffs argued that a broad reading of section IX.A3—that EWEB is not liable for any power interruptions—would render the specific waivers of liability in IX.A1 and IX.A2 superfluous and meaningless. Consequently, in their view, section IX.A3 should be construed to apply only to power interruptions that are (1) intentional but brief and for the purposes of emergency repairs, or (2) the result of causes beyond EWEB's reasonable control. According to plaintiffs, in order to give meaning and effect to all of the contract's provisions, the specific waivers of liability should control and, accordingly, as a matter of law, EWEB was liable to Hynix for damages caused by power outages within EWEB's reasonable control.
Plaintiffs went on to argue that, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to EWEB, the power outage in question was within EWEB's reasonable control because the differential relay that tripped and caused the interruption was owned, maintained, and serviced by EWEB, and was located in the part of the facility that was under EWEB's exclusive control. They noted that EWEB had known about the leak for more than a year and had responded by placing a tarp over the affected equipment. Further, after Hynix was informed about the leak, EWEB made the decision to install a drip guard without first scheduling a planned interruption of service and without providing notice to Hynix of a temporary power outage. Ultimately, the power outage was caused when an EWEB employee drilled a hole and caused a differential relay to trip. That cause was not, therefore, outside of EWEB's reasonable control, according to plaintiffs.
EWEB filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that, as a matter of law, the agreement relieved EWEB from liability for damages that might result from any interruption, suspension, curtailment, or fluctuation in electric service. EWEB relied on a strict reading of section IX.A3, which expresses a broad waiver of liability, for both parties, for any power interruption. Thus, EWEB argued, plaintiffs unambiguously released EWEB from any liability for damages caused by the 2007 outage. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granted EWEB's cross-motion for summary judgment.
On appeal, plaintiffs raise three assignments of error. The first and third assignments concern the trial court's ruling that, as a matter of law, the agreement relieved EWEB from liability for damages resulting from the 2007 power outage. Plaintiffs renew their argument that section IX.A does not unambiguously relieve EWEB from liability in the event of any power interruption, but rather only for interruptions that result from causes that are not within EWEB's reasonable control. Moreove...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Thomas
...& Tarlow , 118 Or.App. 700, 710, 849 P.2d 526, rev. den. , 317 Or. 163, 856 P.2d 318 (1993) ; see also Hynix Semiconductor Mfg. America v. EWEB , 276 Or.App. 228, 235, 367 P.3d 927 (2016) (although a court may declare what is implicit in a contract, it may not create an entirely new obligat......
-
PIH Beaverton LLC v. Red Shield Ins. Co.
...issues of material fact and whether either party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ " Hynix Semiconductor Mfg. America v. EWEB , 276 Or.App. 228, 230-31, 367 P.3d 927 (2016) (quoting Vision Realty, Inc. v. Kohler , 214 Or.App. 220, 222, 164 P.3d 330 (2007) ). Here, there are no d......
-
Bethlehem Constr., Inc. v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co.
...issues of material fact and whether either party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Hynix Semiconductor Mfg. America v. EWEB , 276 Or. App. 228, 230-31, 367 P.3d 927 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also ORCP 47 C (providing standards for summary judgment). ORS 87.0......