Title: Earth Construction, Inc. v. State of Vermont Agency of Transportation

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Earth Construction, Inc. v. Vermont Agency of Transportation (2005-011); 
178 Vt. 620; 882 A.2d 1172

2005 VT 82

[Filed 26-Jul-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 82

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-011

                               JUNE TERM, 2005

  Earth Construction, Inc.	       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Caledonia Superior Court
                                       }	
  State of Vermont Agency of           }
  Transportation	               }
  and Patrick Garahan	               }	DOCKET NO. 298-12-98 Cacv

                                                Trial Judge: Walter M. 
                                                             Morris, Jr.

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Plaintiff Earth Construction, Inc. appeals, following our
  decision and remand to the superior court to consider whether plaintiff had
  any claims remaining that lay outside the boundaries of the Transportation
  Board's jurisdiction.  We previously ruled that plaintiff was precluded
  from relitigating any claims that were within the Board's jurisdiction
  because plaintiff failed to properly appeal from the Board's final order
  disposing of those claims.  After reviewing the statute that delineates the
  scope of the Board's jurisdiction, and carefully considering plaintiff's
  complaint, the superior court held that, even under the liberal notice
  pleading standards of Vermont Rule of  Civil  Procedure 8, plaintiff had
  failed to set forth facts and law that would support any legal claims
  outside the Transportation Board's jurisdiction.  Therefore, it dismissed
  the complaint on a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule
  12(c).  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  Plaintiff began adversarial administrative, and then legal,
  proceedings against the Agency of Transportation and various Agency
  employees after the termination of four road construction contracts
  plaintiff had with the Agency.  Plaintiff's administrative action
  culminated in an August 28, 1997 letter from the Transportation Board,
  informing plaintiff that, among other reasons, it would not consider his
  claims alleging breach of contract because the Board considered such claims
  beyond its jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the Board refused to hold a hearing
  or take further action on plaintiff's claims.  Sixteen months later,
  plaintiff filed a complaint seeking damages from the Agency for a variety
  of ill-defined wrongs stemming from the termination of plaintiff's
  contracts.  The complaint also asserted that the Board erred by refusing to
  hear plaintiff's grievances.  The superior court dismissed the complaint,
  ruling that it was essentially an appeal from the Board's decision, and as
  such was not filed within the jurisdictional thirty-day time limit required
  by Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure 74 and 75.    
   
       ¶  3.    In Earth Construction, Inc. v. State of Vermont, No.
  2001-237 (Vt. Mar. 13, 2002), a three-justice panel of this Court heard
  plaintiff's appeal from the superior court's dismissal of the complaint. 
  We held, among other things, that plaintiff is precluded from challenging
  the Board's adverse determinations of his claims because plaintiff failed
  to timely appeal the Board's decision pursuant to Rule 74. (FN1)  Id. at 3. 
  Thus, even though the Board declined jurisdiction over some of plaintiff's
  claims, we held that they would be precluded even if the Board erred in
  assessing the limits of its jurisdiction.  In so doing, we recognized the
  possibility that plaintiff could still assert other claims as part of an
  original complaint in superior court, assuming that they are determined to
  be outside the scope of the Board's authority and within the applicable
  statute of limitations.  We remanded the case with instructions that the
  superior court determine which, if any, of the claims plaintiff asserted
  were outside the scope of the Board's jurisdiction.  As to those claims,
  the court was then required to test their viability under the generally
  applicable pleading standards contained in the Vermont Rules of Civil
  Procedure. 

       ¶  4.  On remand, the superior court correctly observed that
  plaintiff's central "claims are fundamentally and essentially derived from
  four highway construction contracts that it believes were unlawfully
  breached by the Agency."  The court then concluded that claims for breach
  of contract were within the Board's appellate adjudicative authority, and
  were, therefore, precluded for the reasons set forth in our prior
  three-justice panel opinion.  We affirm the court's conclusion on this
  issue.

       ¶  5.  The Transportation Board is a creature of statute, and as
  such its jurisdiction is limited to the powers and duties conferred by the
  Legislature in 19 V.S.A. § 5, the Board's enabling statute.  See In re
  Danforth, 174 Vt. 231, 236, 812 A.2d 845, 849 (2002) (recognizing that
  jurisdiction of public administrative body is "exclusively conferred" by
  statute).  When interpreting statutes, the Court's task is to effectuate
  the express intent of the Legislature as evidenced by the "plain, ordinary
  meaning of the language used."  Barnet Hydro Co. v. Pub. Serv. Bd., 174 Vt.
  464, 466,