JEA, F/K/A JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC AUTHORITY, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, 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.
JEA appeals a summary judgment in FPL's declaratory judgment action seeking to define "nameplate capacity" under a joint ownership agreement for a power plant. The court affirmed, holding that the term is unambiguous and means the maximum rated capacity of a generator as established by the manufacturer and affixed to the nameplate.
The term "nameplate capacity" is unambiguous and refers to the maximum rated output of a generator under specific conditions designated by the manufacturer, affixed to the generator's nameplate, meaning 679.6 megawatts for each of Coal Units 1 and 2 at the St. Johns River Power Park, for a total of 1359.2 megawatts.
[1] Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court.
[2] A contract term is ambiguous only if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a contract term is ambiguous only if it "is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation."”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether a contract term is ambiguous
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJEA and FPL entered into an Agreement for Joint Ownership, Construction and Operation of the St. Johns River Power Park on April 2, 1982. FPL sought a…
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 Ambiguity In Contract Language cases and more on FLexlaw
JEA, formerly known as the Jacksonville Electric Authority, appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) in FPL’s declaratory judgment action. FPL sought a declaration that the term “nameplate capacity,” as used in section 8.3 of the Agreement for Joint Ownership, Construction and Operation of the St. Johns River Power Park entered into on April 2, 1982 between the parties, means the maximum rated capacity of a generator established by the manufacturer and affixed to the generator’s nameplate in Units 1 and 2 in the Power Park. We agree with the trial court that the meaning of the term “nameplate capacity” as used in section 8.3 is unambiguous, Cartaya v. Coastline Distribution, 937 So.2d 700, 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court); Lambert v. Berkley South Condominium Association, Inc., 680 So.2d 588, 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (a contract term is ambiguous only if it “is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation.”); that the case was appropriate for determination by summary judgment, Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d *1248126, 131 (Fla.2000) (“[W]here the determination of the issues of a lawsuit depends upon the construction of a written instrument and the legal effect to be drawn therefrom, the question at issue is essentially one of law only and determinable by entry of summary judgment.”) (quoting Cox v. CSX Intermodal, Inc., 732 So.2d 1092, 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)); and that the term “nameplate capacity,” as determined in the summary judgment entered by the trial court, “refers to the maximum rated output of a generator under specific conditions designated by the manufacturer, which in the present case, is affixed to the generator of each of Coal Unit 1 and 2 at the St. Johns River Power Park ... [and] means 679.6 megawatts for each of Coal Units 1 and 2 of the St. Johns River Power Park and the total of the ‘nameplate capacity’ of both of Coal Units 1 and 2 of the St. Johns River Power Park is 1359.2 megawatts.” See Madison Gas & Elec. Co. v. EPA, 25 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir.1994) (“Nameplate capacity is the capacity figure stamped on a generating unit by its manufacturer and includes the capacity necessary to power the unit itself.”). Accordingly, we affirm.
ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- COX v. CSX Intermodal, Inc., 732 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Lambert v. The Berkley S. Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 680 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Hayward v. State, 937 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Pate v. State, 937 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)