CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY OF FLORIDA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY GAS COMPANY OF FLORIDA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Consolidated Gas Company challenged City Gas Company's right to operate in a subdivision where Consolidated held an agreement with the developer for gas services. The court affirmed that Consolidated's contractual franchise and right-of-way easement did not create exclusive property rights enforceable against a public utility competitor.
The court held that (1) the exclusive franchise agreement did not create an easement or property right enforceable against City Gas Company, and (2) the perpetual right-of-way easement was not exclusive because it was not clearly stated to be exclusive. Consequently, City Gas Company, as a public utility with statutory easement rights, could use the servient land in any manner consistent with the limited use granted to Consolidated.
[1] An agreement granting an "exclusive franchise" to install and maintain utility infrastructure does not create an easement or property right enforceable against a competin…
[2] A "perpetual right-of-way easement" does not create an "exclusive right-of-way easement" unless the exclusivity is clearly stated.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the agreement between the developer and Consolidated Gas Company of Florida, which (a) gave to Consolidated "an exclusive franchise" to "install and maintain gas tanks, gas lines, appliances and appurtenances" in the developed subdivision did not create an easement or property right in the land enforceable by Consolidated against City Gas Company”
Establishes the core holding that a franchise agreement does not create enforceable property rights against competing utilities
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConsolidated Gas Company held an agreement with a developer giving it an exclusive franchise to install and maintain gas tanks, gas lines, appliances …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exclusive Franchise cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment under review entered in favor of City Gas Company of-Florida upon holdings that (1) the agreement between the developer and Consolidated Gas Company of Florida, which (a) gave to Consolidated “an exclusive franchise” to “install and maintain gas tanks, gas lines, appliances and appurtenances” in the developed subdivision did not create an easement or property right in the land enforceable by Consolidated against City Gas Company, see Colen v. Sunhaven Homes, Inc., 98 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1957); Leonard v. Baylen Street Wharf Co., 59 Fla. 547, 52 So. 718 (1910); St. Joe Natural Gas Co. v. City of Ward Ridge, 265 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); North Dade Water Co. v. Florida State Turnpike Authority, 114 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959); G.W. Thompson, Thompson On Real Property § 295 at 644 (1980 replacement); see generally Loxahatchee Recreation, Inc. v. Harrison, 367 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), and (b) gave to Consolidated a “perpetual right-of-way easement” did not create an “exclusive right-of-way easement,” see Holbrook v. Telesio, 225 Cal.App. 152, 37 Cal.Rptr. 153 (1964) (the grant of an exclusive easement must be clearly stated); see also Jabour v. Toppino, 293 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Claughton Hotels, Inc. v. City of Miami, 140 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); and (2) in the absence of an easement specifically and clearly stated to be exclusive, City Gas Company of Florida, a public utility granted statutory easement rights, is privileged to use the servient land in any manner not inconsistent with the limited use vested in the easement owner, cf. City of Pasadena v. California-Michigan Light & Water Co., 17 Cal.2d 576, 110 P. 2d 983 (1941) (grant to city of non-exclusive easement for the installation of water pipes did not preclude grant to another water company of similar rights in easement).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stephens v. Dobbins, 511 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…nt clearly shows an intention that the easement is to be exclusive. See Wiggins v. Lykes Brothers, Inc., 97 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1957); Gelfand v. Mortgage Investors of Washington, 453 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Consolidated Gas Co. v. City Gas Co., 447 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The instrument creating the easement in this case stated only that it gave the easement owners “an easement for ingress and egress” over the particular parcel of land. Because the instrument did not specifically state that the ea…
-
Consol. GAS Co. OF Fla., Inc. v. City GAS Co. OF Fla., 880 F.2d 297 (11th Cir. 1989)…granting it the right to be the sole provider of gas to the subdivision could not be enforced as against public policy. This ruling was affirmed on appeal, although on slightly different grounds. Consolidated Gas Co. of Fla. v. City Gas Co. of Fla., 447 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 456 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1984). During this time, Consolidated and City Gas also engaged in unsuccessful negotiations for the purchase of Consolidated’s assets by City Gas. When this also failed, Consolidated sued in federa…
Authorities Cited
- N. Dade Water Co. v. Fla. State Tpk. Auth., 114 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Leonard v. Baylen St. Wharf Co., 59 Fla. 547 (Fla. 1910)
- Colen v. Sunhaven Homes, Inc., 98 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1957)
- Jabour v. Orsolina Toppino, 293 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Claughton Hotels, Inc. v. The City OF Miami, 140 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- ST. JOE Natural GAS Co., Inc. v. City OF Ward Ridge, 265 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Loxahatchee Rec., Inc. v. "Butch" Harrison, 367 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)