Present: All the Justices
GORDONSVILLE ENERGY, L.P.
v. Record No. 980813 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN
February 26, 1999
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND
POWER COMPANY
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Randall G. Johnson, Judge
In this appeal, we determine whether the terms of a
contract between Virginia Electric and Power Company (Virginia
Power) and Gordonsville Energy, L.P. (Gordonsville) entitle
Virginia Power to recover liquidated damages for an 11-day
period in which Gordonsville's electric power plant was "shut
down" due to a mechanical failure.
Under the parties' "Power Purchase and Operating Agreement"
(the Contract), Gordonsville agreed to build a $200 million
electric power facility capable of producing electricity for
sale exclusively to Virginia Power. The Gordonsville facility
consists of two identical electric generating plants, designated
as Unit 1 and Unit 2. The outage at issue in this dispute
involves Unit 1.
Article 8 of the Contract, entitled "Interconnection,"
provides in § 8.2 that Gordonsville "shall be responsible for
the design, construction, installation, maintenance and
ownership of the Facility." "The Facility" is defined as
including "all energy producing equipment."
The Gordonsville facility began operating in June 1994.
When Virginia Power requires electricity from Gordonsville,
Virginia Power "dispatches" Gordonsville by notifying it of the
number of kilowatts required. Gordonsville responds by
producing the electricity and supplying it to Virginia Power's
distribution system. Since the Gordonsville facility went into
service in 1994, Virginia Power has "dispatched" Gordonsville
only about 15 to 20 percent of the time. A typical dispatch of
the Gordonsville facility lasts four to six hours.
Virginia Power makes two types of payments to Gordonsville
under the Contract. The first type is made for Gordonsville's
"Net Electrical Output," or the net amount of kilowatt hours of
electricity actually delivered by Gordonsville to Virginia
Power. This payment amount varies from month to month.
The second type of payment, termed "Capacity Payments," is
a fixed monthly payment for Gordonsville's "Dependable
Capacity," which represents the amount of electricity available
for dispatch at Virginia Power's request from the Gordonsville
facility. The Capacity Payments were designed to compensate
Gordonsville for the costs incurred in building its facility, as
well as the fixed costs related to operating and maintaining the
facility. At the time this dispute arose, Virginia Power was
obligated under the Contract to make Capacity Payments of about
2
$1.2 million per month, or $40,000 per day, for each of the two
units in the Gordonsville facility.
The Contract defines two types of "outages" that may occur
when either unit of Gordonsville's facility is unavailable for a
potential dispatch request from Virginia Power. A "Scheduled
Outage" is a planned interruption in the operation of a unit of
the facility that has been coordinated in advance with Virginia
Power for the purpose of conducting inspections or routine
maintenance. During Scheduled Outages, Virginia Power remains
obligated to make Capacity Payments to Gordonsville.
A "Forced Outage" is defined in § 1.18 of the Contract as
"[a]n occurrence where: (i) any or all of [a unit's] Dependable
Capacity is not available for Dispatch; or (ii) [a unit's]
delivery of Net Electrical Output deviates from Virginia Power's
Dispatch level by greater than ±5%." Section 1.20 defines a
"Forced Outage Day" as "[a] continuous twenty-four (24) hour
period (a) beginning with the start of a Forced Outage,
regardless of the number of actual outages that may occur during
such twenty-four (24) hour period(s), and (b) designated by
[Gordonsville] as a Forced Outage Day."
A "Force Majeure Day" is defined in § 1.19 as "a Forced
Outage Day that is both (i) excused under the provisions of
Article 14 and (ii) . . . designated as a Force Majeure Day by
3
[Gordonsville]." Section 14.1 of the Contract provides, in
relevant part:
[N]either Party shall be responsible or liable for
or deemed in breach hereof because of any delay or
failure in the performance of their respective
obligations hereunder to the extent that such delay
or failure is due solely to circumstances beyond the
reasonable control of the Party experiencing such
delay or failure, including but not limited to acts
of God; unusually severe weather conditions; strikes
or other labor difficulties; war; riots;
requirements, actions or failures to act on the part
of governmental authorities preventing performance;
inability despite due diligence to obtain, maintain
or renew required licenses; accident; fire; damage
to or breakdown of power generation materials and
equipment that is not caused by normal wear and
tear; or transportation delays or accidents.
(Emphasis added.)
Under the Contract, Gordonsville is allowed a specified
number of Forced Outage Days during the facility's initial six
months of operation and for each one-year period thereafter
throughout the 30-year term of the Contract. The Contract
further provides in § 10.18:
The Parties agree that Virginia Power will be
substantially damaged in amounts that will be
difficult or impossible to determine if . . . the
Facility exceeds the allowance for Forced Outage
Days . . . Therefore, . . . the Parties have agreed
on sums which the Parties agree are reasonable as
liquidated damages for such occurrences. It is
further understood and agreed that the payment of
the liquidated damages is in lieu of actual damages
for such occurrences. [Gordonsville] hereby waives
any defense as to the validity of any liquidated
damages stated in this Agreement as they may appear
on the grounds that such liquidated damages are void
as penalties or are not reasonably related to actual
damages.
4
For each Forced Outage Day in excess of the allowed number,
§ 10.15 of the Contract directs that Virginia Power's Capacity
Payments will be reduced by $600,000 per day as liquidated
damages. The Contract also states that this liquidated damages
provision does not apply if a Forced Outage Day qualifies as a
Force Majeure Day. However, the Contract relieves Virginia
Power of its obligation to make Capacity Payments to
Gordonsville for such Force Majeure Days.
In September 1995, while Unit 1 was operating under a
dispatch from Virginia Power, an alarm indicated an electrical
short circuit inside the Unit's 100-ton steam turbine generator.
The generator had been manufactured for Gordonsville by General
Electric Company (General Electric), one of two manufacturers of
that type generator in the United States. Gordonsville
personnel performed tests on the generator for several days, but
were not able to determine the cause of the short circuit. On
September 9, 1995, Kenneth Nieman, the executive director of the
Gordonsville facility, decided to "shut down" Unit 1 and "take
it off line" so that the generator problem could be diagnosed
and repaired. On September 12, 1995, Gordonsville notified
Virginia Power that Unit 1 was experiencing an event of Force
Majeure and was unavailable for dispatch until further notice.
Personnel from General Electric and Gordonsville disassembled
5
the generator and shipped its 17-ton rotor to a General Electric
facility in Richmond, where it was determined that a copper
"pole-to-pole" connector inside the rotor had failed. Unit 1
was returned to service on September 20, 1995, 11 days after it
had been "shut down."
Virginia Power concluded that the 11 outage days in
September 1995, did not qualify as Force Majeure Days and
informed Gordonsville that, for this reason, those days
constituted unexcused Forced Outage Days under the Contract.
Virginia Power also informed Gordonsville that it previously had
exhausted its allowance of Forced Outage Days. Virginia Power
asserted a claim against Gordonsville for a total of $6.6
million in liquidated damages under the Contract for the 11-day
period, and began withholding $600,000 per month from its
payments to Gordonsville.
Gordonsville filed a motion for judgment against Virginia
Power in the trial court, alleging breach of contract based on
Virginia Power's "wrongful assessment of liquidated damages" as
a result of the September 1995 outage. In Count I, Gordonsville
alleged that all 11 days of the September 1995 outage were Force
Majeure Days and that, therefore, Virginia Power was not
entitled to liquidated damages. Gordonsville alleged in the
alternative in Count II that even if the September 1995 outage
did not result from a Force Majeure event, Gordonsville was
6
entitled to count three of the outage days as allowed Forced
Outage Days. Thus, Gordonsville alleged that Virginia Power was
not entitled to $1.8 million of the $6.6 million claimed in
liquidated damages. In Count V, Gordonsville essentially
alleged that the liquidated damages clause of the Contract was
an unenforceable penalty. 1
The trial court sustained Virginia Power's demurrer and
plea of res judicata or collateral estoppel addressed to Count
V, holding that it was bound by its ruling on the same issue in
an earlier action between the parties, which arose from two
unrelated outages at the Gordonsville facility in June-July
1994, and February 1995. In that earlier action, the court had
ruled that the liquidated damages provision of the Contract was
not an unenforceable penalty.
The trial court ruled in the alternative that even if this
issue was not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel,
Virginia Power was entitled to summary judgment on Count V.
Based on its assumption that the evidence in the pending case
concerning the liquidated damages clause would not differ from
the evidence presented in the prior action, the court awarded
summary judgment for Virginia Power on Count V for "reasons of
judicial economy," but permitted Gordonsville to submit a
1
Gordonsville alleged two other Counts in its motion for
judgment that are not at issue on appeal.
7
written offer of proof for the court's consideration. Following
Gordonsville's submission of the offer of proof, the trial court
entered an order affirming its award of summary judgment for
Virginia Power on Count V.
The trial court then considered the parties' cross motions
for summary judgment on Count II. In the prior action between
the parties, the jury had found that the June-July 1994 and
February 1995 outages were caused by Force Majeure events.
Gordonsville argued that because of that finding, those outage
days could not be counted toward the number of Forced Outage
Days allowed under the Contract. Gordonsville argued,
therefore, that it still had three allowed Forced Outage Days
available to be applied to the September 1995 outage. The trial
court ruled that although the earlier 1994 and 1995 outage days
constituted Force Majeure Days, they also constituted Forced
Outage Days under the terms of the Contract, and that these
outage days must be counted in computing Gordonsville's allowed
number of Forced Outage Days. The trial court awarded summary
judgment for Virginia Power on Count II.
The claims asserted in Count I were tried before a jury.
Thomas Butler, who qualified as an expert in mechanical
engineering, testified that the pole-to-pole connector in the
generator rotor of Unit 1 failed because it had been improperly
brazed, or soldered, during its manufacture and assembly.
8
Butler further testified that the connector did not fail due to
normal wear and tear, and that there was nothing Gordonsville
"could [have] or should have done" to prevent failure of the
connector.
Robert Hamilton, a retired mechanical engineer who had
worked for General Electric for about 36 years, also testified
as an expert witness. He explained that the General Electric
workers who manufactured and assembled the pole-to-pole
connector used in the Gordonsville generator were required to
follow detailed drawings. In essence, Hamilton testified that
one of the drawings contained a mistake and deviated from the
actual design requirements because the drawing showed a rigid,
brazed piece, rather than a flexible piece, extending into an
area of the connector. Hamilton concluded that the Gordonsville
generator failed due to the inability of the defective pole-to-
pole connector to withstand normal wear and tear. He further
testified that a properly manufactured pole-to-pole connector
should not wear out, but should "last forever." In Hamilton's
opinion, if the Gordonsville pole-to-pole connector had been
manufactured in accordance with General Electric's own design
requirements, the generator failure would not have occurred.
In contrast to Hamilton's testimony, Robert Fenton, a
retired electrical engineer who was formerly a general manager
of generator design and engineering at General Electric,
9
testified that there was nothing General Electric could have
done differently that would have prevented the failure of the
pole-to-pole connector in Gordonsville's generator. In Fenton's
opinion, the failure of the Gordonsville generator was a
"random, unexpected failure."
Over Gordonsville's objection, the trial court gave the
jury Instruction No. 10, which stated:
Gordonsville Energy is responsible to Virginia Power
under the parties' contract for the design and
construction of Gordonsville Energy's electric
generating facility, including the steam turbine
generator, its rotor and the rotor's component parts
that failed in September, 1995. Although
Gordonsville Energy relied on General Electric
Company to design and construct the rotor,
Gordonsville Energy is responsible to Virginia Power
for General Electric's performance of those
activities just as if Gordonsville Energy had
performed them itself.
The jury returned its verdict in favor of Virginia Power,
finding that "the [September 1995] outage was not a force
majeure event." The trial court entered final judgment in favor
of Virginia Power, and this appeal followed.
Gordonsville first argues that the trial court erred in
granting Instruction No. 10 because the instruction improperly
directed the jury to impute to Gordonsville any act of
negligence by General Electric. Gordonsville also asserts that,
as a matter of law, the outage in September 1995 was a Force
Majeure event under the terms of the Contract because there was
10
no evidence of negligence by Gordonsville. Thus, it contends
that the jury was required by the evidence to find that the
September 1995 outage was "beyond the control" of Gordonsville
and resulted in Force Majeure Days under the Contract. We
disagree with Gordonsville's arguments.
In granting Instruction No. 10, the trial court ruled that
the Contract did not excuse Gordonsville's failure to perform
under the Contract if the failure was caused by the negligence
of a subcontractor retained by Gordonsville to perform functions
for which Gordonsville was responsible. Under familiar
principles of contract interpretation, we reach the same
conclusion and hold that the trial court did not err in granting
Instruction No. 10.
It is the duty of the court, not the jury, to interpret a
contract when its terms are clear and unambiguous. D.C.
McClain, Inc. v. Arlington County, 249 Va. 131, 135, 452 S.E.2d
659, 662 (1995); Winn v. Aleda Const. Co., 227 Va. 304, 307, 315
S.E.2d 193, 194 (1984). The court must interpret the contract
as a whole to determine the parties' intent. Westmoreland-LG&E
Partners v. Virginia Elec. and Power Co., 254 Va. 1, 11, 486
S.E.2d 289, 294 (1997). Since the interpretation of plain and
unambiguous terms of a contract is a question of law, we are not
bound by the trial court's determination and are afforded the
same opportunity as the trial court to review the contract
11
provisions. C.F. Garcia Enterprises, Inc. v. Enterprise Ford
Tractor, Inc., 253 Va. 104, 107, 480 S.E.2d 497, 498-99 (1997);
Tuomala v. Regent Univ., 252 Va. 368, 374, 477 S.E.2d 501, 505
(1996); Langman v. Alumni Ass'n of the Univ. of Va., 247 Va.
491, 498, 442 S.E.2d 669, 674 (1994).
In § 8.2 of the Contract, the parties agreed, in plain and
unambiguous language, that Gordonsville was "responsible for the
design, construction [and] installation" of the Facility, which
is defined in § 1.16 of the Contract as "all energy producing
equipment." In a later section of the Contract, § 14.1, the
parties agreed that an outage would be excused if it was "due
solely to circumstances beyond [Gordonsville's] reasonable
control . . . including . . . damage to or breakdown of power
generation materials and equipment that is not caused by normal
wear and tear."
The provisions of § 14.1 do not override or alter the
allocation of responsibilities set out in § 8.2. By its plain
terms, § 14.1 does not purport to address the duties of parties
to the Contract. Instead, that section addresses the
circumstances under which the failure of performance of
contractual duties will be excused as Force Majeure days. Thus,
under the Contract, Gordonsville remained responsible for the
contractual obligations it subcontracted to General Electric and
was excused from performance only if an outage also was "beyond
12
the reasonable control" of any subcontractors hired to perform
Gordonsville's duties set forth in § 8.2.
The evidence did not establish as a matter of law that the
September 1995 outage was beyond Gordonsville's reasonable
control. The evidence showed that the failure of the pole-to-
pole connector was either a random, unexpected occurrence or the
result of negligence by General Electric. In returning its
verdict in favor of Virginia Power, the jury necessarily
rejected the proposition that the failure was a random,
unexpected occurrence.
Gordonsville next contends that the trial court erred in
holding that the Force Majeure Days from the previous 1994 and
1995 outages should be counted against Gordonsville's allowance
of Forced Outage Days. Gordonsville argues that summary
judgment on Count II should have been entered in its favor,
because a Force Majeure day is an excused "Forced Outage Day"
for which Gordonsville merely loses its Capacity Payment under
§ 10.15 of the Contract.
In response, Virginia Power argues that the Contract
specifically designates Force Majeure Days as Forced Outage
Days. Thus, Virginia Power contends that the trial court
properly concluded that the earlier Force Majeure Days had to be
included in Gordonsville's allotment of Forced Outage Days. We
13
disagree and hold that the trial court erred in granting summary
judgment in favor of Virginia Power on Count II.
As the trial court correctly noted, § 1.19 of the Contract
defines a Force Majeure Day as "a Forced Outage Day that is
. . . excused under the provisions of Article 14." When
contract terms are clear and unambiguous, the words used by the
parties must be given their plain and ordinary meanings. Hutter
v. Heilmann, 252 Va. 227, 231, 475 S.E.2d 267, 270 (1996);
Marina Shores, Ltd. v. Cohn-Phillips, Ltd., 246 Va. 222, 225-26,
435 S.E.2d 136, 138 (1993). In the context of the Contract
provisions, the usual and customary meaning of the term "excuse"
is "to grant [an] exemption . . . to or from." Webster's Third
New International Dictionary 794 (1993). The Contract only
limits the scope of the exemption for Force Majeure Days by
eliminating the Capacity Payment of about $40,000 to
Gordonsville for each such day. 2 Since the Contract does not
otherwise limit the exemption provided for Force Majeure Days,
such days are excused, or exempted, under the Contract from
being counted toward the number of allowed Forced Outage Days.
This conclusion also is supported by the plain language of
§ 14.4, which provides that "each Day of a Forced Outage excused
under this Article 14 shall be considered a Forced Outage Day
2
This limitation of exemption is contained in § 10.15(b)
14
unless [Gordonsville] appropriately designates such Day as a
Force Majeure Day." This language compels the conclusion that a
day that is appropriately designated as a Force Majeure Day and
is excused under Article 14 is not "considered a Forced Outage
Day" under the terms of the Contract. Thus, the trial court
erred in ruling that the earlier 1994 and 1995 Force Majeure
Days were Forced Outage Days chargeable to Gordonsville in
computing the number of Forced Outage Days allowed under the
Contract. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred in
awarding summary judgment for Virginia Power on Count II and in
failing to award summary judgment for Gordonsville on that
Count. 3
Finally, Gordonsville argues that the trial court erred in
dismissing Count V of the motion for judgment because
Gordonsville's offer of proof established that the liquidated
damages clause of the Contract constituted an unenforceable
penalty. Virginia Power responds, in part, that Gordonsville is
of the Contract.
3
Virginia Power argues on appeal that an additional,
independent basis exists for affirming the trial court's award
of summary judgment in its favor on Count II. Virginia Power
argues that Gordonsville's motion for judgment alleged that the
last three days of the September 1995 outage should be counted
as allowed Forced Outage Days, when Gordonsville should have
alleged that the first three days of the outage were allowed.
Since this claim was not raised before the trial court, we will
not address it for the first time on appeal. See Rule 5:25.
15
barred from contesting the reasonableness of the liquidated
damages clause since it waived in the Contract the right to
raise such an objection. 4
The Contract provides in § 10.18 that Gordonsville "waives
any defense as to the validity of any liquidated damages stated
in this Agreement as they may appear on the grounds that such
liquidated damages are void as penalties or are not reasonably
related to actual damages." Nevertheless, Gordonsville argues
that it should be relieved from this contractual obligation
because such a waiver violates public policy. We disagree with
Gordonsville’s argument.
This Court has recognized that a liquidated damages
provision may constitute a penalty and, therefore, be
unenforceable when the amount agreed to is "out of all
proportion to the probable loss." Brooks v. Bankson, 248 Va.
197, 208, 445 S.E.2d 473, 479 (1994); Taylor v. Sanders, 233 Va.
73, 75, 353 S.E.2d 745, 746-47 (1987). Such a provision also
may constitute an unenforceable penalty if the agreed amount is
4
We find no merit in Gordonsville's contention that Virginia
Power is procedurally barred from asserting that Gordonsville
waived its objection to the Contract's liquidated damages
provision, because Virginia Power did not assign cross-error to
an alleged ruling by the trial court that the waiver was
unenforceable. The trial court did not rule on this issue in
this action and did not expressly adopt such a ruling from the
earlier action. Thus, an assignment of cross-error was not
required under Rule 5:18.
16
"grossly in excess of actual damages." O'Brian v. Langley
School, 256 Va. 547, 551, 507 S.E.2d 363, 365 (1998). However,
it is equally well-settled that a term of the parties' contract
becomes the law of the case unless such term is repugnant to
public policy or to some rule of law. Rash v. Hilb, Rogal &
Hamilton Co. of Richmond, 251 Va. 281, 285, 467 S.E.2d 791, 794
(1996); D.C. McClain, Inc., 249 Va. at 135, 452 S.E.2d at 662.
We decline to hold that Gordonsville's contractual waiver
of the right to object to a liquidated damages clause is
"repugnant to public policy." We long have recognized that a
party may enter into an agreement in which he waives a
significant right. See e.g., Blue Cross of Southwestern Va. v.
McDevitt & Street Co., 234 Va. 191, 196-97, 360 S.E.2d 825, 828
(1987) (waiver of right to claim damages); Flintkote Co. v. W.W.
Wilkinson, Inc., 220 Va. 564, 570, 260 S.E.2d 229, 232 (1979)
(waiver of right to jury trial on amount of attorney's fees);
VNB Mortgage Corp. v. Lone Star Indus., Inc., 215 Va. 366, 369,
209 S.E.2d 909, 912 (1974) (waiver of right to file mechanic's
lien).
Generally, a party may waive by contract any right
conferred by law or contract. See Roenke v. Virginia Farm
Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 209 Va. 128, 135, 161 S.E.2d 704, 709
(1968); Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Grant, 185 Va.
288, 299, 38 S.E.2d 450, 454 (1946). If the party being charged
17
with relinquishment of a right had knowledge of the right and
intended to waive it, the waiver will be enforced. Roenke, 209
Va. at 135, 161 S.E.2d at 709; Woodmen, 185 Va. at 299, 38
S.E.2d at 454.
Gordonsville raised no allegation at trial and presented no
evidence that it entered into § 10.18 of the Contract under
duress, or as the result of fraud or mistake, or under any other
circumstances that might serve as a basis for declaring the
waiver unenforceable. Instead, the evidence at trial
established that the entire Contract resulted from extended,
"arms-length" negotiations between two sophisticated corporate
entities, both represented by counsel. Therefore, we conclude
that Gordonsville's contractual waiver is enforceable and bars
its claims alleged in Count V. 5
For these reasons, we will affirm the trial court's
judgment in favor of Virginia Power on Counts I and V. We will
also reverse the trial court's judgment on Count II and enter
final judgment in favor of Gordonsville on that Count.
Affirmed in part,
reversed in part,
and final judgment.
5
Since Gordonsville waived any objection to the
reasonableness of the liquidated damages clause, we do not
address Gordonsville's assignment of error concerning the trial
court's application of res judicata or collateral estoppel to
bar relitigation of the validity of the liquidated damages
provision.
18