I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 9 - CA- 0 0 0 5 3 - S CT HI LL BROTHERSCONST RUCTI ON COM

PANY, I NC.
v. M I S S I S S I P P I T RA NS P OR T AT ION C OM

M I S S ION D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 12/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. W I L L I AM F
. CO L E M AN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : W I L L I AM R. P UR DY R A L P H B . G E R M A N Y , J R
. J US T I N J OHN P E T E RS ON A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E : A L A N M
. P U R D IE BE T T Y R UT H F OX J AM ES T. M ETZ M IC H A E L E D W IN D ’A N T O N IO , J R
. DI ON J EFF ERY SHA NLEY NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 06/ 17/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E C A R L SO N , P . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D P I E R C E , JJ. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s i s a di s put e overa cos t - adj us t m entpr ovi s i on of a hi ghw ay cons t ruct i on contr act betw een H i l l B r ot her s C ons t ruct i on C om pany and the M i ssi s s i ppi T r ans por t at i on C om m i s s i on. W hi l e w e agr ee w i t h t he C om m i s s i on’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the pr ovi s i on ati s s ue,
w e fi nd t hat i tv i olat es t he m and at e an d scop e of i t s enabli ng st atute. W e t heref ore r everseThe dissent’ s conce rn aboutour remand is misplaced. W e remand because we are reve rsing 1 summ ary judgm ent, and

thi s m atter m

us t no w proc eed

to t rial. 

### 2 t he tr i al cour t ’ s gr anto f summ ary j udgm enti n f avorof the C om m i s s i on, and r emand f or pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on. 1

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2
. T h e C o m m issi o n aw ard ed D
. B
. Jo h n so n C o n stru cti o n C o m p an y , Inc
. (“Jo h n so n ”) a contr actf

orcons truct i on of

appr oxi m at el y 6. 25 m i l es of hi ghw ay. A f

t erJ ohns on def

aul t ed, th e C o m m iss io n ca lled u p o n Jo h n so n ’s b o n d in g co m p a n y , T ra v e ler ’s C a su a lty an d S u re ty C o m p a n y o f A m e ric a (“ T ra v e ler s” ), to c o m p lete th e c o n tra c t. ¶3. T r avel er s and H i l l B r ot her s C ons t ruct i on C om pany , Inc. (“H i l l B r other s . ”) ent er ed i nt o a compl et i on agr eementt hati ncorpor at ed al l the contr actdocument s and s peci al pr ovi s i on s c on t a i ne d i n the c on t r a c tbe t w e e n J oh ns on a nd the Com mi s s i on . Spe ci al Pr ovis i on #907- 109- 01 ent i t l ed “M eas ur ement& Paym entf orC hanges i n C os t s of C ons t ruct i on M at er i al s ( Fuel and A s phal t ) , ” her ei naf t erre f err ed t o as the “FA C , ” r equi r ed
cert ai n m on t hly cost -adj ust m ents forthe p urposes of r ei m bu rs i ng H i l l B rothers f ordi es el f

uel
a n d a sp h a lt u se d in th e p rojec t. ¶4. T he provis i on est abli shed a fuel base pri ce t o b e used d uri ng the b i dd i ng process so th a t all c o n tra c to rs b id d in g o n th e p rojec t w o u ld h a v e a lev e l p lay in g fie ld w ith re g a rd to p ric in g fu e l co sts in to th e ir b id s. A c tu a l re im b u rse m e n ts d u rin g th e c o n tra c t p e rio d w o u ld be det erm i ned by compar i ng t he bas e pr i ce t o a cos ti ndex publ i s hed mon t hly by the M iss iss ip p i D e p a rtm e n t o f T ra n sp o rta tio n a n d , w h e re th e d iffe re n c e e x c e e d e d fiv e p e rc e n t,Hill Brother s had been a party to nine previ ous contract s with the Commission in whic h the 2 same clause was included. However, Hil l Brothers a sserts thatit has exper ienced incons istent int erp ret ati on s an d a

pp lic ati on s o f t

his pro vis ion , v ary ing“f

rom on e MD OTDi strict

to ano the r, within the same MDO T Districtat different ti mes, an d even with regar d to the same MDOT co ntract.” H illBroth ers argue s th at i t ne ve r ch all en ge d th is b eca us e, in t hepa st, thepri ce dif fe rentia l ha d b een

ins ignif icant. 

### 3 re im b u rse m e n t ra tes w o u ld b e a d ju ste d a c c o rd in g ly . W ith re sp e c t t o a d ju stm e n ts in
r ei m bur s ementr at es af

t ert he contr actper i od, the l as ts ent ence of the FA C pr ovi ded: A fte r th e e x p ira tio n o f c o n tra c t ti m e , inc lu d in g all ex ten sio n s, a d ju stm e n ts w ill be comput ed us i ng f

uel and mat er i al pr i ces t hatar e i n ef f ectatt he expi r at i on of t he contr actt i m e. 2 ¶5
. A t th e tim e o f th e c o m p letio n a g re e m e n t, H il l B roth ers e sti m ated that the w o rk d efa u lt ed u p o n an d l eft u n p erfo rm ed on th e Jo h n so n co n tr ac t w o u ld tak e m o re tha n tw o y ea rs t o f i ni s h, even though l es s t han a mont h of a l l ow abl e contr actt i m e r emai ned. T he C om m i s s i on ext ended the contr actt o M ar ch 13, 2004. H i l l B r other s compl et ed the contr act on M ar ch 13, 2006, t w o year s pas tthe expi r at i on of the contr actt i m e. ¶ 6
. P rio r to th e e x p ira tio n o f th e c o n tra c t tim e , th e C o m m iss io n , th ro u g h its su b o rd in a te and oper at i ng ent i t y, t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof T r ans po rt at i on ( M D O T ) , cal cul at ed
m ont hl y payment s f

ordes i gnat ed pay i t ems af f ect ed by oi l pr i ces by adj us t i ng t he bas el i ne pr i ce o f petr ol eum produc t s ( es t abl i s hed w hen the contr actw as or i gi nal l y aw ar ded)
. T he amount of

adj us t m entw as contr ol l ed by then- curr entpr i ces as r ef l ect ed i n the i ndex p u b l i s h e d mon t h l y b y M DO T. ¶7. W hen the contr actt i m e expi r ed on M ar ch 13, 2004, and the w or k w as not compl et ed. t he Comm i s s i on be ga n t o mak e monthl y a dj us t mentpa ymen t s ba s e d o n the c ont r act pr ovi s i on re ci t ed above
. B eca us e pr i ces di d notvary t o any gr eatext entf ora per i od of

t i m e,Th e diss ent in co rre ctly a ssum es t hat th e co ntract

p rov isi on

at i ssu e wo uld

a lw ay s w ork

to 3 thede tri m ent of

theco ntract or. To theco ntrary , if at th e en d o f t

heco ntract

pe rio d f ue l price s w ere low er than at th e b eg inning , th e C om miss ion wo uld bereq uired to p ayHillBro the rs morefo r ea ch ga llo n o f f

ue l th anHi ll B rot

he rs a ctu ally s pe nt. Th is w ould result in a wind fall f

or H illBroth ers . 

### 4 t hi s change i n t he met hod of det erm i ni ng adj us t m ent s had l i t t l e ef f ecton H i l l B r other s ’ t ot al
re im b u rse m e n ts. H o w e v e r, in A u g u st 2 0 0 5 , H u rric a n e K a trin a stru c k th e M iss iss ip p i G u lf C oas t , caus i ng t he pr i ce of petr ol eum pr oduct s t o s kyr ocket
. B eca us e the C om m i s s i on 3 i nterpret ed the con t ractprovis i on t o m ean thatal l rei m bu rs ement s w oul d be det erm i ned us i ng p ric e s in eff

e c t at the en d o f th e co n tra c t pe rio d , H ill B ro th e rs re c e iv e d re im b u rse m e n ts
w h ich w e re fa r le ss tha n am o u n ts a c tu a lly ex p e n d e d fo r p e tro leu m p ro d u c ts. A c c o rd in g to H i l l B r ot her s , t he C om m i s s i on’ s i nt erpr et at i on cos tt hem near l y $500, 000 i n unr ei m bur s ed petr ol eum cost s . T r avel er s and H i l l B r other s both pr ot es t ed the appl i cat i on of t hi s pr ovi s i on to n o a v a il. ¶8. H i l l B r ot her s f

i l ed s ui t agai ns t t he C om m i s s i on, as s ert i ng t he C om m i s s i on br eac hed it s c o n tr ac t by im p rop erly ap p lying the F A C an d u n d erp ay ing H il l B roth ers. H il l B roth ers cont ended thatt he pr operi nt erpr et at i on of the FA C w as f

orthe C om m i s s i on t o r epl ace t he bi ddi ng bas el i ne i n the contr actw i t h the ac tual pr i ce of petr ol eum produc t s atthe end of t he
con t ractperi od , and t hen m ake m on t hly adj ust m ents . ¶9. O n Sept ember 4, 2008, t he C om m i s s i on m oved f or s um m ary j udgm ent , ar gui ng t hat t he FA C w as unambi guous and thatH i l l B r other s w as notent i t l ed t o any dam ages f ort he all eg ed u n d erp ay m en t r elati n g to the F A C
. H il l B roth ers m o v ed for p arti al su m m ary j udgm ent , ar gui ng t hati t s i nt erpr et at i on of the FA C w as corr ector , i n t he al t ernat i ve, t hat t he pr ovi s i on w as ambi guous and s houl d be cons t rued aga i nstthe C om m i s s i on. T he

### 5

C om m i s s i on t hen f

i l ed a mot i on f

orcompl et e s um m ary j udgm ent , ar gui ng t he FA C w as not
am biguou s. ¶10. I n a Sept ember 26, 2008, or der , t he t r i al cour t f ound t hat t he FA C contr actpr ovi s i on
w as unambi guous as i nt erpr et ed by the Com m i s s i on and deni ed H i l l B r other s ’ m ot i on f or p a rtial s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. O n O c to b e r 2 , 2 0 0 8 , H ill B ro th e rs f iled its re sp o n se to C o m m issi o n ’s m o ti o n for su m m ary jud g m en t al o n g w ith it s o w n cro ss-m o ti o n for su m m ary ju d g m e n t, arg u in g th a t th e C o m m iss io n ’s in terp re tatio n o f th e p ro v isio n w a s in c o n flict w ith and contr ary t o Sect i on 31- 7- 13( i ) of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ode and ther ef or e s houl d be s truck f r om t he contr act . H i l l B r ot her s addi t i onal l y ar gued t hatt he pr ovi s i on – as the C om m i s s i on
s oughtt o appl y i t– w as uncons ci onabl e. ¶11. Fol l ow i ng a hear i ng, t he t r i al cour t f ound t hat t he FA C as w r i t t en, i nterpre t ed, and appl i ed by the C om m i s s i on w as notambi guous , contr ary t o t he s t atut e, oruncons ci onabl e. T he courtf

ound ther e w er e no ge nui ne i s s ues of m at er i al f

actand ther ef

or e, t he C om m i s s i on
w as e n ti tl ed to su m m ary jud g m en t as a m a tt er o f l aw . F rom that ruli n g , H il l B roth ers appea l s , r a i s i ng t w o i s s ue s : ( 1) w he t he rt he t r i a l c ou r tpr op e r l y i nt e rpr e t e d the f ue l adj us t m entpr ovi s i on; and ( 2) w hethert he comm i ssi on ’ s i nt erpr et at i on vi ol at es t he author i zi ng s t atut e s uch thatt he l i m i t at i on on adj us t m ent s pr ovi ded f ori n t he l as ts ent ence of t he FA C s houl d be s t ruck. A N A L Y S IS ¶12. W e appl y a de novo s t andar d of r evi ew t o t he t r i al cour t ’ s gr ant or deni al of a mot i on fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Kui pe rv. Tar nab ine , 20 So. 3d 658, 660-61 ( M i s s . 2009) ( ci t at i ons
om i t t ed). A m oti on forsum m ary j ud gm ent “sh all ” be g rant ed b y a co urt“i f the p l eadings,

### 6

dep osi t i on s, answ ers t o int err og at ori es and a dm i ssi on s on fi l e, t og et her w i t h the af fi dav i t s, if a n y , sh o w th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n y m a ter ial fa c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rty is en ti tl ed to a ju d g m en t as a m att er o f l aw . ” M iss. R
. C iv. P. 56 (c). ¶1 3. T he par t i e s s ha rpl y di s pu t e t he i nt erpr et at i on of t he pr ovi s i on gover ni ng how adj us t m ent s w er e t o be comput ed “atthe expi r at i on of c ontr actt i m e. ” U pon r evi ew i ng t he clea r l an g u ag e o f th e p rov isi o n , w e a g ree w ith the tri al co u rtthat the C o m m iss ion ’s i nt erpr et at i on of

t he pr ovi s i on w as corr ect . H ow ever , w e f i nd thatthe pr ovi s i on exce eds t he
sc o p e o f a u th o rity g ra n ted to th e C o m m iss io n b y S e c tio n 3 1 -7 -1 3 (i), w h ich p ro v id e s:: (i ) R oa d con st ru cti on p etrol eu m p rod u cts p ri ce ad just m en t cl au se aut hori z at i on . A n y a g e n c y o r g o v e rn in g a u th o rity a u th o riz e d to e n ter in to con t ract s f

or the co nst ruct i on , m ai ntenance, surf aci ng or repai r of hi gh w ays, r oads or s t r eet s , m ay i ncl ude i n i t s bi d propos al and cont r actdocument s a pr i ce adj us t m entcl aus e w i th r elat i on to the cos tto the contr actor , i ncludi ng t axes, bas ed upon an i ndus t r y- w i de cos tinde x, of petr ol eum produc t s i ncl udi ng as phal tus ed i n t he per f or m ance orexec ut i on of the cont r actori n the pr oduct i on orm anuf

actur e of m at er i al s f

orus e i n s uch perf

orm ance . Such i ndus t r y- w i de i ndex s hal l be es t abl i s hed and publ i s hed mon t hly by t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epar t m entof T r ans por t at i on w i t h a copy ther eof t o be mai l ed, upon r eques t , t o t he cl erks of the governi ng a uthor i t y of eac h m uni ci pal i t y and th e c le rk s o f e a c h b o a rd o f s u p e rv is o rs th ro u g h o u t t h e s ta te . The pr i ce a d ju stm e n t cla u se sh a ll b e b a se d o n th e c o st o

f su c h p e tro leu m p ro d u c ts o n ly and s hal l noti ncl ude any a ddi t i onal pr of i toroverhead a s partof t he adj us t m ent . T he bi d pr opos al s ordoc um entcontr acts hal l cont ai n the bas i s and m ethods of

adj us t i ng uni tpr i ces f

orthe cha nge i n t he cos tof s uch petr ol eum produ ct s. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 3 1 -7-1 3 (i ) (R ev . 2 0 0 8 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 1 4
. T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t th e “ in terp re tatio n g iv e n [a] sta tu te b y th e a g e n c y c h o se n to admi ni s t eri ts houl d be ac cor ded def er ence . ” W

ill ia m s v . P u c k e tt , 624 So. 2d 496, 499 ( M i s s . 1993) ( ci t i ng G il l v. D ept . of W ildli f e Conse r vati on , 57 4 S o. 2d 58 6, 59 3 (M i ss. 1 9 9 0 )). H o w e v e r, th is C o u rt w ill n o t de fe r to the ag e n c y ’s in terp re tatio n o f th e sta tu te if it

### 7

is re p u g n a n t to th e p la in m e a n in g th e re o f. K er r-McG ee Ch em . Cor

p. v. B uelow , 670 So. 2d 12, 16 ( M i s s . 1995)
. Fur t herm or e, the “pow er s l egi s l at i vel y gr ant ed t o and exe r ci s ed by an admi ni s t r at i ve age ncy ar e l i m i t ed t o and m us tnotexcee d t he author i t y pre s cr i bed by the l egi s l at i ve ena ctm ent . ” Mis s . P ub. Ser v. Com m ’n v. Mis s . P ow er& L i ght Co. , 593 So. 2d 9 9 7 , 1 0 0 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ) (cit ing ca ses).

Sect i on 31- 7- 13( i ) cl ear l y pr ovi des t hatan agency’ s bi d propos al m ay in c lu d e “ a p ri c e a d

ju s tm e n t c la u s e , w i th r elat i on t o the cos tof the contr actor

. . . ba sed up on an i nd ustry- w i de co st i nd ex of petrol eum prod ucts i ncludi ng a sp h a lt us ed i n the per f or m ance orexe cut i on of the contr act . . . . Such in d u s tr y -w id e in d e x s h a ll b e . . . p u b lis h e d m o n th ly
. . . . The pr i ce adj us tm ent c la u se sh a ll b e b a se d

o n the co st o

f su c h p e tro leu m p ro d u c ts o n ly and s hal l not i nclude an y ad dit i on al profi tor overhead as partof the ad j ust m ent. ” M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 3 1 -7-1 3 (i ) (R ev . 2 0 0 8 ). ¶ 1 5
. In in se rtin g a fu e l-a d ju stm e n t c lau se in to its c o n tra c t, th e C o m m iss io n w a s b o u n d to fo llo w th e sta tu to ry re q u ire m e n ts. T h e las t se n te n c e o f th e F A C c o n tra v e n e s th is m a n d a te b y b a sin g th e fu e l ad

ju stm e n ts o n the p ric e o f fu e l on a n a rb itrar y d a te u n re late d to th e d a te t he fuel w as purchased, and u nrel at ed to the actual costof the fuel t o the con t ract or. T hu s, t he pr i ce adj us t m entw as not“ i n r el at i on t o the cos tof the contr act or . ” R at her, t he adj us t m entw as f

i xed arbi t r ar i l y bas ed on the pr i ces of petr ol eum produc t s on t he day the contr actexpi r ed. ¶16. T he C om m i s s i on argue s t hat t his C ou rt ’ s deci s i on i n Far r is h G r avel Co. , I nc. v. Miss. S tate H

igh w a y C o m m ’n , 458 So. 2d 1066 (M i ss. 1984) , contr ol s . I n Farrish ,Provided further, any public auth ority a uthorized t o enter int o contract s for the construction, 4 m ainten an ce, surf

acingor rep air

of highw ay s, roa ds o r st

ree ts, inc ludingany d ep artm ent or ag en cy of the St ateof Mi ssi ssipp i and its po litical sub div isi on s, may inc lude in its bid prop os al an d c ontra ct do cum ents a

pri ce adju stment cl au se w ithrel ati on to the cos t to theco ntract or, inc ludingtax es, based u po n anin du str

y wi dec os t ind ex , of

p etroleum

p rod uc ts inc ludinga sp ha lt used in the pe rf orman ce o r ex ecutio n o f t he contrac t or

in t hepro du cti on

or manuf act ureof m ate rials f

or u se in such performance; such industry wide cost i ndex to be established and publ ished monthly by the St ateHi ghway D ep artm ent w itha copythe reo f t o b e m ail ed to t hecle rks o f theg ov erningautho rity of eac h m un icipa lity and

thecle rks of

eac h b oard o f s up erv iso rs thro ughout th e st ate . Thepri ce adjustment clause sha ll be based on s uch cost of said petroleum product s only and shal l not incl ude any a dditi on al pro fi t o r o ve rhe ad a s part of thead jus tm ent. Thebid

propo sal s o r do cum ent co ntract shall contain t

heba sis an d m eth od s o f a dju stingun it p ric es f or t hech an gein s uc h c os t of sai d petroleum products. Mis s. Co deAnn. § 3 1-7 -39 (19 75 ) (r ep eal ed 19 81 ).



### 8 contr act or s f

i l ed s ui tal l egi ng t he f

ol l ow i ng cl aus e vi ol at ed M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 31- 7- 3 9 , a s ta tu te n e a rl y id e n tic a l to S e c tio n 3 1 -7 -1 3 (i ). 4 A d ju stm e n ts h e re in p ro v id e d sh a ll n o t ap p ly to fu e ls c o n s u m e d o r m a ter ials in c o rp o ra ted in to th e w o rk d u rin g a n y m o n th ly e stim a te p e rio d fa lli n g w h o lly aft er t he exp i rat i on of con t ractt i m e as determ i ned by check ed fi nal quan t i t i es. Farrish , 4 5 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 6 7
. T h e co n tra c to rs c o n ten d e d tha t th e p e tro leu m a d ju stm e n t co u ld
n o t b e lim ite d ju s t to th e w o rk d o n e d u ri n g th e c o n tr a c t p e ri o d
. I d. at1068. A f

t erquot i ng t he cha ncery cour t ’ s or derdenyi ng t he contr act or s ’ c l ai m , thi s Court , w i t h l i t t l e di s cus s i on,
s t at ed “W e ar e of

t he opi ni on t hatt her e i s no m er i ti n t hi s as s i gnm ent . ” I d. a t 1 0 6 9
. ¶17. A l t ho ug h w e d o no thave the benef i tof r eadi ng the ent i r e contr acti n Farish , it is di s t i ngui s habl e f

rom today’ s cas e i n thati tcompl et el y el i m i nat ed adj us t m ent s “af t erthe expi r at i on of

contr actt i m e. ” Thus, the ques t i on i n Farrish w as w hethert he s t atut e appl i ed to c o n tra c ts w ith n o a d ju stm e n t cla u se a fte r t h e c o n tra c t term . T h e c o n tra c t p ro v isio n in

### 9

to d a y ’s d isp u te, h o w e v e r, d o e s in c lu d e a fu e l-a d ju stm e n t pr o v isio n w h ich m u st c o m p ly w ith t he s t atut or y r equi r ement s . T he C om m i s s i on c ont i nued t o pa y a dj us t m ent s af t er the expi r at i on of

t he contr actt i m e, butt he adj us t m ent s w er e comput ed us i ng t he pr i ces i n ef f ect att he expi r at i on of

t he contr actper i od, ra t hert han t he i ndex pr i ce f ort hatpar t i cul arm ont h. ¶18. T he C om m i s s i on ar gues t hati t s author i t y t o det erm i ne how pr i ce adj us t m ent s f or f uel
cons um ed dur i ng a c ons t ruct i on pr oj ectw i l l be made i s “nec es s ar i l y i m pl i ed” f r om l anguage in S e c tio n 3 1 -7 -1 3 (i), w h ich sta tes th a t “[t]h e b id p ro p o sa ls o r d o c u m e n t c o n tr a c t sh a ll
c o n tain the b asis an d m etho d s o f ad justi n g u n itp ri ce s for the ch an g e in s u ch co st of sa id petr ol eum produc t s . ” Thi s ar gum entcom pl et el y i gnor es t he C om m i s s i on’ s curr entpos i t i on t hatr ei m bur s ement s f

ol l ow i ng t he contr actper i od w er e notadj us t ed ata l l
. Pr ovi di ng f orno adj us t m enti s notpr ovi di ng “the bas i s and met hods of ad j ust i ng t he uni tpr i ces f ort he change ” i n t he cos tof f

uel
. Such adj us t m ent s ar e r equi r ed by the s peci f i c s t atut ory l anguage
r el i ed upon by the C om m i s s i on. CO NC L US I ON ¶19. W e f

i nd t he pr ovi s i on i n ques t i on i s unambi guous , and the pl ai n m eani ng of t he w or ds used in the F A C supp ortt he C om m i ssi on ’s i nterpret at i on of the co ntr act . H ow ever, the las t
s ent ence of

t he F A C , l ocki ng i n r ei m bur s ement s t o H i l l B r other s bas ed on the pr i ce of petr ol eum as of

t he expi r at i on of

contr actt i m e, contr avene s t he r equi r ement s of Sect i on 31- 7 -1 3 (i) an d thu s m u st b e stru c k fro m the ag re e m e n t. T h e jud g m e n t of the tr ia l c o u rt is
r ever s ed and thi s m at t eri s r emanded f orf ur t herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on. ¶20. REVERSED AND REM AND ED
.

### 10

W A L L E R , C .J ., C A R L S O N , P .J ., K I T C H E N S , C H A N D L E R A N D P I E R C E , J J ., C O N C U R . R A N D O L P H , J ., C O N C U R S IN R E S U L T O N L Y . G R A V E S , P .J ., D I SSE N T S W I T H SE P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N , JO I N E D B Y L A M A R , J. GR AV E S , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶21. I agr ee w i th t he m aj or i t y t hat t he contr act pr ovi s i on at i s s ue i s unambi guous and has been pr oper l y i nt erpr et ed by the M i s s i s s i ppi T r ans port at i on C om m i ssi on ; how ever , I di s agr ee t hatt he pr ovi s i on contr avene s M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 31- 7- 13( I ) , t he s t atut e author i zi ng t he C om m i s s i on t o pr om ul gat e petr ol eum p r i ce- adj us t m entpr ovi s i ons i n i t s cons t ruct i on contr act s . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 31- 7- 13( i ) ( R ev. 2008)
. T he m aj ori t y’ s hol di ng and d isp o sitio n is p ro b lem a tic n o t o n ly b e c a u se o f its le g a l an a ly sis , b u t als o b e c a u se it i s
unr eas onabl e f

ort hi s C our tt o hol d t hatthe pr ovi s i on mustbe s t ruck f r om the contr actand t o r emand t hi s c as e t o the t r i al c our tf orf ur t herpr ocee di ngs . St r i ki ng t he pr ovi s i on f r om t he
c o n tra c t d o e s n o t an sw e r th e u lti m a te q u e stio n o f w h a t a d d iti o n a l am o u n t, i f a n y , H ill B rothers s ho uld be rei m bu rs ed for pet rol eum cost s, and itis n ot approp ri at e to rem and a case t o t he tr i al cour tw hen ther e ar e no addi t i onal f act s thatneed t o be es t abl i s hed. T her ef or e, I m u st r esp ec tf

u ll y d issen t and w o u ld affirm the tri al cou rt ’s order gran ti n g the C o m m issi o n ’s
m o tio n fo r c o m p le te s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. ¶22. Sect i on 31- 7- 13( i ) i n no w ay pr ohi bi t s t he C om m i s s i on f r om i ncl udi ng t he pr ovi s i on ati s s ue i n i t s cons t ruct i on c ont r act s ; the maj or i t y i s r eadi ng i nt o the s t atut e r es t r i ct i ons that t he pl ai n l anguage of

t he s t atut e does noti m pos e. A s t he t ri al cour thel d, “nothi ng i n t he enabl i ng s t atut e [ ] w oul d pr event[ t he C om m i s s i on] f r om ‘ s un set t i ng ’ the FA C [ t he Fuel A dj us t m entC l aus e – i
. e. , t he pr ovi s i on] atcont r act ’ s end si nce the st atut e l eave s t he dur at i on and ot herpa r amet er s of

a FA C t o [ t he C om m i s s i on’ s ] di s cr et i on, i ncl udi ng w hethert o pl ace

### 11

on e i n the con t ractatal l
. ” A s the tr i al cou rtfur t he r fo u n d , the p rovi si on ati ssue i s a pr ovi s i on t hatH i l l B r ot her s – a s ophi s t i cat ed contr act i ng par t y – f r eel y a gr eed t o and “kne w
o r sh o u ld h a v e k n o w n h o w [i] t o p e ra ted h a v in g b e e n a p a rty to n in e p re v io u s c o n tra c ts w ith [th e C o m m iss io n ] w h e re in th e sa m e c lau se w a s in c lu d e d .” T h e tr ia l c o u rt n o ted th a t H ill B r ot her s coul d have ne got i at ed ( w i t h T r avel er s ) a s epar at e and di s t i nctpetr ol eum pri ceadj us t m entcl aus e, j us tas i tdi d ot hert erm s of the agr eement , l i ke t i m e o f com plet i on of
w or k, buti tdi d not
. T he pr ovi s i on i s s ens i bl e i n thati tgi ves i ncent i ve to com pani es
c o n tra c tin g w ith th e C o m m iss io n to c o m p lete th e ir c o n stru c tio n p rojec ts b e fo re th e ir contr act s expi r e and, i n s o doi ng, t o avoi d t he pos s i bi l i t y of havi ng t o abs orb t he cos tof ri si ng petr oleum pri ces. ¶23. M or eover , i ti s unre as onabl e f ort he m aj or i t y t o hol d thatt he pr ovi s i on m us tbe s truck f r om t he contr actand t o r emand t hi s cas e t o the tr i al cour tforf ur t herpr ocee di ngs . St r i ki ng th e p ro v isio n fro m the co n tra c t do e s n o t an sw e r, or at lea st n o t ex p licitly a n sw e r, th e u lti m a te q u e stio n the p a rties se e k to h a v e res o lv e d : w h a t ad d iti o n a l am o u n t, if an y , sh o u ld H ill B r ot her s be r ei m burs ed forp et r ol eum cost s . I n otherw or ds , decl ar i ng thatt he pr ovi s i on
m us tbe st ruck does noti ndi cat e w hetherthi s C our ti s hol di ng thatthe petr ol eum
r ei m bur s ement s f

ol l ow i ng t he expi r at i on of the contr acts houl d ha ve been adj us t ed bas ed on the ind ex pu b li sh ed m o n thly b y th e M issi ssipp i D ep artm en t o f T ran sp o rt ati o n (as the y w ere bef or e the contr actexpi red) ; w hethert he pos t - expi r at i on r ei m bur s ement s s houl d nothave been a dj us t ed atall ; orw hethers om e otherr ei m bur s ementcal cul at i on s houl d have be en
u sed
. F u rth erm o re, th is i s n o t an a p p rop ri ate c ase for this C o u rtt o rem an d to the tr ial co u rt

### 12

f orf ur t herpr ocee di ngs , beca us e ther e ar e no addi t i onal f act s t hatneed t o be es t abl i s hed; t he i s s ues H i l l B r ot her s pr es ent s ar e s ol el y ques t i ons of l aw thatthi s C our ts houl d deci de. ¶24. A ccor di ngl y, I mustr es pect f ul l y di s s enta nd w ou l d aff i rm t he tr i al cou rt ’s or der g ra n tin g th e C o m m is s io n ’s m o tio n fo r c o m p le te s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. LA M AR, J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.