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 5 - CA- 0 1 6 8 9 - S CT UPCHURCH PLUM

BI NG, I NC. AND TRICONEX S YS TEMS, I

NC.
v. GR EENWOOD UT

I L I T I ESCOM

M I S S ION
ON M OTI ON F OR RE HEAR I NG D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 12/ 2005 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. W
. ASH LEY H I NES COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LE F LORE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : BR E NDA B
. BE T HANY C. M I CHAEL E LL I NGBURG AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : P HI L B. AB E RN E T HY THOM AS M. F LANAGA N, J R. NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 08/ 30/ 2007 M O T I O N FO R R E H E A R I N G FI L E D : 05/ 14/ 2007 M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. T h e m o tio n fo r r e h e a rin g is d en ied. T h e o ri g inal o p inion is w ith d raw n , an d th is
o p inion is sub sti tuted there for. ¶2. T he L ef

l or e C ounty C i r cui t C ou rt , aft er conduct i ng a bench t r i al , ent er ed j udgm ent i n f avorof G r eenw ood U t i l i t i es C om m i s s i on and aga i ns tU pchurch Pl um bi ng, I nc. , and T ric o n e x S y s te m s, In c ., in th e to tal a m o u n t o f $ 2 ,6 2 2 ,4 5 1 .9 6 , p lu s p o st-ju d g m e n t in ter e st.

### Gre enwood i s an el ec tric c ompany owne d and ope rate d by the Ci ty of Gre enwood, 1 

### andGreenwo odis a member o f ME AM
. 2 U p c h u rch P lum b ing , Inc
. , an d T ri co n ex S y stem s, Inc
. , ap p ea l th e tri al co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t. F i n d i n g n o e r r o r , we a f f i r m. F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶ 3
. In M a y 1 9 9 3 , th e M u n icip a l E n e rg y A g e n c y o f M iss iss ip p i (M E A M ) c o n tra c ted w ith G ener al E l ectr i c C om pany ( G E ) fora m aj orupgra de of t hr ee gene r at i ng uni t s atG r eenw ood, Y azoo Ci ty, and C l arks dal e. W i th t he w r i t t en cons entof G E , the G r eenw ood por t i on of t hat
co n tr ac t w as full y a ssign ed b y M E A M to G ree n w o o d U ti li ti es C o m m issi o n (G ree n w o o d ). 1 I n J anuary 1995, G r eenw ood contr act ed w i th U pchur ch Pl um bi ng, I nc. , ( U pchur ch) f oran upgr ade of

the contr ol s ys t em fori t s G ener al E l ectr i c Fr ame V combust i on turbi ne. U pchur ch s ubcontr act ed w i th T r i conex Sys t ems, I nc. , ( T r i conex) f orthe har dw ar e and in sta llatio n o f a d ig ital c o n tro l sy ste m fo r th e tu rb in e , in a c c o rd a n c e w ith w h a t is re fe rre d to by the part i es as C ontr act103. ¶ 4
. M a rio n F lan a g a n w a s G re e n w o o d ’s m a n a g e r o f th e turb in e p rojec t, a n d K im b le K e lly
w as G r eenw ood’ s pl ants uper i nt endent , w i th r es pons i bi l i ty f ordai l y oper at i ons at G r e e nwood. O n N ov e mber1 0, 1 99 5, Hami d N i a ki a n, a c on tr ol s ys t e ms s pe c i a l i s tf or T r i conex, w entt o G ree nw ood f oron- s i t e t es t i ng of

the turbi ne. A n att empt t o s t artthe turbi ne atthe r at ed spe ed of 4, 860 R PM ended w hen t he m echa ni cal over s peed bol ttr i pped and shut the turbine dow n at a s peed report ed as 4,000 R P M on the T ri con ex co ntr ols
. N i aki an as ked thata G r eenw oo d em ployee as s i s thi m w i th the t es t i ng of the turbi ne us i ng

### A S trob otac in strument is an in strument for measuring the sp eed o f a rotatin g o bject. 2 

### 3 a S tro b o tac in stru m e n t b y p o in tin g th e S tro b o tac in s tr u m e n t a t a d e sig n a ted p lac e w h ile 2 N i aki an vi ew ed t he di gi t al R PM re adouti n t he contr ol r oom . G r eenw ood, w i thoutobj ect i on, pr ovi ded J err y Shaw , G r eenw ood’ s m ai nt enanc e supe r vi s or , w ho had neve rconduct ed that
s peci f i c type of t es tus i ng a Str obot ac i ns trum ent . Shaw us ed a St r obot ac i ns trum entow ned by G r eenw ood. ¶5
. Shaw pl a c e d the Str ob ot a c i ns trumen to nt o s ome po r t i on o f t he turbi ne s haf

t and
c a lle d o u t th e s p e e d re a d in g s in to th e c o n tr o l r o o m a re a to N ia k ia n , B o b b y B e n n e tt, a G r eenw ood el ectr i cal engi neer , and Y u- G ene C hen, a G E engi neer . T he r eadi ngs r eport ed by Sha w c on f

i r med the s pe e d r e po r t e d by the Tr i c on e x c on tr ol s a te a c h po i nt , whi c h l ed
e v e ry o n e i n v o l v e d t o b e l i e v e th a tth e r e a d i n g s we r e c o rr e c t . T h u s , La n e Ri c h a r d , a GE engi neeri n N ew O r l eans , w as cont act ed, and R i char d di r ect ed G r eenw ood t o adj us tthe
over s peed tr i p bol t . Pur s uantt o Chen’ s i ns truct i ons , D oug E l m or e, a G r eenw ood empl oyee,
cons truct ed a w r ench a nd adj ust ed the mechani cal over s peed bol t . T he uni tw as s t ar t ed agai n, and w hen t he uni tre ache d normal oper at i on spee d, i texper i ence d exce s s i ve vi br at i on. Tr i c o n e x wa s r e l e a s e d f r o m th e j o b s i t e p e n d i n g r e s o l u t i o n o f th e p r o b l e m. ¶6. O n February 9, 1996, D ean W al t er s , a G E s ervi ce engi neer , t es t ed the turbi ne s peed
u sin g a d ig ita l t a c h o m e ter . T h e tu rb in e tac h o m e ter sh o w e d th e tu rb in e w a s a c tu a lly oper at i ng ata s peed of

6, 560 R PM , w hi l e the new T r i conex c ontr ol s ys t em show ed a s peed of 4, 860 R PM
. G E i ns truct ed G r eenw ood nott o oper at e t he turbi ne any l onger , beca us e the

### 4

over s peed eve nthad caus ed dam age. T r i conex’ s sof tw ar e f ort he contr ol s ys t em cont ai ned
a pr ogr amm i ng de f

ect . I ns t ead of

us i ng a 1: 1 r at i o betw een the turbi ne s haf tand uni ts peed, the s of tw ar e us ed a 1: 1. 35 r at i o, w hi ch corr es ponded t o the aux i l i ary s haf tr atherthan the turbi ne s haf

t . T he r es ul tw as an i ncorr ects peed r eadout , w hi ch ca us ed the turbi ne t o run t oo f as tdur i ng t es t i ng; as a r es ul t , the turbi ne r ot orw as damag ed beyond r epai rand had t o be
r epl ace d. ¶7
. G ree n w o o d o ri g inally fi led s u itag ains t G E , U p ch u rch an d T ri co n ex in th e C h an ce ry C our tof L ef l or e C ounty on J une 24, 1996. G r eenw ood’ s com plai ntr eques t ed thatt he
c h a n c e ry c o u rt g ra n t, in tera lia : (1 ) a d e c lar a to ry ju d g m e n t ad ju d ica tin g w h ich d e fe n d a n ts
w e re li a b le fo r th e d a m a g e an d rep a ir t o the u n it; (2 ) a n in ju n c tio n m a n d a tin g th a t th e liab le def endant s r epai rthe uni tand s peci f i cal l y per f

or m thei rcontr act s ; ( 3) actual d am ages ; ( 4) puni t i ve damages ; ( 5) pr ej udgm enti nt er es t ; ( 6) cos t s ; ( 7) att orneys ’ f ees ; and ( 8) any ot her d a ma g e s o rr e l i e f

a s th e c o u r tmi g h tf

i n d j u s t . S u b s e q u e n t l y , o n S e p t e mb e r1 7 , 1 9 9 6 , GE f i l ed i t s M ot i on t o T r ans f ert o C i r cui tC our t , and M ot i on t o Tr ans f erV enue t o H i nds C ounty, pur s uantt o M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 12. G E ar gu ed t hatthe cha ncery courtdi d nothave s ubj ect
m att erj ur i s di ct i on overa br eac h of c ontr actcl ai m w her e monet ary damages , r atherthan an in ju n c tio n , is th e a p p ro p ria te r e m e d y . A d d iti o n a lly , G E a rg u e d th a t itc o u ld n o t g e t a f a ir trial in L e flo re C o u n ty b e c a u se o f p re ss c o v e ra g e c o n c e rn in g th e in c id e n t w ith th e u n it. ¶8. O n February 4, 199 7, C han cel l or Jon B arnw el l ent er ed an or derf i ndi ng that the chanc ery courtdi d have subj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on and furtherorde r ed G E t o i nves t i gat e the d a m a g e to th e u n it, id e n tify re p a irs n e c e ss a ry to c o rre c t th e d a m a g e , an d p ro v id e a n e stim a te

### 5

o f th e c o st o f th e n e c e s s a ry re p a irs. C h a n c e llo r B a rn w e ll also o rd e re d G re e n w o o d , w ith in t en days of

r ece i vi ng the quot e f

r om G E , t o i s s ue a pur chas e or dert o a l l ow G E t o p roceed
w i th the w or k purs uantt o t he quot e, and di r ect ed G r eenw ood t o pay G E f orthe compl et ed
r epai r s . O n D ece m ber11, 1997, C hance l l orB arnw el l ent er ed an a gr eed a m ended or derby t he par t i es al l ow i ng G r eenw ood t o contr actw i th G E f orthe ac tual r epai r s . O n M ar ch 1, 2000, C hance l l orB arnw el l ent er ed anotheror dergr ant i ng D ef endant ’ s M ot i on t o T r ans f er t o the C i r cui tC our tof

L ef l or e C ounty. ¶9. A ft er years of di scovery, this case even tu all y w as sch ed u led to b e con du ct ed as a ci r cui tc ou r tj ury tr i a l wi th J ud ge Ash l e y H i ne s p r e s i di ng , o n M a y 5, 2 00 3, b uti tw as
r es chedul ed f

orSept ember8, 2003. H ow ever , on Sept ember3, 2003, J udge H i nes ent er ed an A gr eed O r derC ont i nui ng T r i al Set t i ng and R es ett i ng f orB ench T ri al
. J udge H i nes ul t i m at el y conduct ed a be nch t r i al O ct ober7- 9, 2003, and i s s ued hi s Fi ndi ngs of Factand Co n c l u s i o n s o f

La w o n Oc t o b e r1 8 , 2 0 0 4 , wh i c h we q u o t e v e rb a t i m: 1. I n the 1990s the Pl ai nt i ff , G r eenw ood U t i l i t i es C om m i s s i on ( “G r eenw ood U t i l i t i es ”) , began an upgr ade pr oj ecton i t s F r ame V G as T urbi ne ( “the turbi ne”) ati t s H ender s on G ener at i ng St at i on. 2. I n or dert o upgr ade the turbi ne, G reenw ood U t i l i t i es ent er ed i nt o a c o n tra c t w ith U p c h u rc h P lu m b in g , In c . (“U p c h u rc h ” ). P u rsu a n t to th is contr actU pchur ch w as t o de s i gn a nd i ns t al l a di gi t al contr ol s ys t em for the turbi ne. U pchur ch then s ubcontr act ed w i th T r i conex Syst ems, I nc. ( “ Tr i c o n e x ” ) f

o rb o th th e d e s i g n a n d i n s t a l l a t i o n o f th e c o n tr o l s y s t e m. 3. G r eenw ood U t i l i t i es ent ere d i nt o a s epar at e contr actw i th G ener al E l ectr i c C om pany ( “G E ”) t o pr oduce the mechanica l upgr ade of the turbi ne and t o com pl et e i t s r ei ns t al l at i on atthe H ender s on G ener at i ng St at i on. 4. T he c on tr ol s ys t e m des i gn e d b y Tr i c on e x was de f e c t i ve . The s ys t em r equi r ed the i nputof

dat a by w hi ch the contr ol s det erm i ned the turbi ne sh aft spe ed
. T ri co n ex ch o se to p lace the d ata se n so rs o n a n au x il iary

### 6 s haf tw i thoutas cert ai ni ng the s peed of the au xi l i ary s haf

t . Si nce the auxi l i ary s haf

tturned at a di f

f er ents peed than the turbi ne s haf ts peed the dat a s ens or s caus ed the contr ol s ys t em t o i ndi cat e a l ow eroper at i ng s peed f orthe turbi ne than the ac tual oper at i ng s peed. 5. T he turbi ne f

eatur ed an ove r s peed tr i p devi ce w hich w oul d s t op the turbi ne i f i texceede d a des i gnat ed s peed. D ur i ng the i ns t al l at i on and s t artup of

the contr ol s ys t em, the over s peed bol ttr i pped atthe r eport ed sp e e d o f 4 ,0 0 0 R P M
. T h is w a s c o n sid e ra b ly b e lo w th e d e sig n a ted trip sp e e d o f 5 ,3 4 6 R P M . T ric o n e x e n g in e e r H a m id N ia k ian so u g h t to conf i r m the ac tual turbi ne s peed by i ndepende ntt es t i ng. G r eenw ood U t i l i t i es em pl oyee J erry Shaw as s i s t ed i n thi s t es t i ng. M r . Shaw ent er ed the s m al l conf i ned ar ea of

the turbi ne w i th a s tr obot ac i ns trum ent . M r . S haw , usi ng the s tr obot ac i ns trum ent , chec ked the s peed of the turbi ne and c al l ed outthe s peed t o M r . N i aki an w ho w as i n the con trol room . T he speeds con fi rm ed by M r. S haw m at ched tho se i nd i cat ed b y the T ri con ex co ntr ols
. 6. M r . Shaw ’ s compet ence w as cal l ed i nt o quest i on by the def endant s at tr ial
. H ow ever, no party ever of fer ed any evi den ce t o prove t hat M r. Shaw w as notcom pet entor thathi s r eadi ngs w er e i ncorr ect . M r . Shaw t es t i fi ed t hathe t ook s peed r eadi ngs f r om the s haf

tpur s uantt o the i ns truct i ons of

M r . N i aki an. Si nce the s peeds o btai ned by M r . Shaw w er e the s ame as t hos e i ndi cat ed by the Tri conex c ontr ol devi ce, the C our ti s l ed t o the onl y l ogi cal concl us i on; thatM r . Shaw corr ect l y t ook rea d ing s from the a u x il iary sh aft j u st as h e w as d ir ec ted b y M r. N i aki an. I ti s l ogi cal thatM r. N i aki an w oul d di r ectM r . Shaw t o the aux i l i ary shaft , si nce thati s w here T ri con ex p l aced the data s ensors. 7. A f

t erconf i r m at i on of

the s peed by i ndepende ntm eans , G r eenw ood U til iti e s a d

ju s ted th e o v e rsp e e d b o lt i n re lian c e o n T ric o n e x ’s f a u lty desi gn . T his l ed to the o perat ion o f the T urbi ne at a s peed of atl east 6, 932 R PM , caus i ng i rr epar abl e damage t o the turbi ne. 8
. T h e C o u rt fin d s th a t th e T ric o n e x c o n tro ls, if p ro p e rly d e sig n e d , sh o u ld have pr event ed the over s peed i nci dentr egar dl es s of the oper at i on of

the o v e rsp e e d b o lt. 9
. Un d e ri t s c o n tr a c tTr i c o n e x wa s o b l i g a t e d t o d e l i v e ra wo r k i n g s y s t e m. T h e sy stem that w as in stal led w as d efe cti v e. A cc o rdin g ly, th e C o u rt f i nds thatT r i conex i s l i abl e t o G r eenw ood U t i l i t i es f orB r eac h of C o n tra c t. 10. T he C our tfi nds thatG E di d notbr eac h i t s contr actw i th G r eenw ood U t i l i t i es . G E had no obl i gat i on underi t s contr actt o s econd- gues s the T r i conex de s i gn.

### 7

11. T he C our tf

i nds thatG r eenw ood U t i l i t i es has s us t ai ned the f ol l ow i ng l osses: 1. I ni t i al r epai rcontr actw i th G E
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1, 500, 000. 00 2
. A d d iti o n a l rep a ir w o rk o u tsid e the sc o p e o f th e re p a ir contr act , butr el at ed t o the over s peed e vent . . . . . . . . . . . $225, 806. 86 3. C ol l ect i ve cos tt o pur chas e addi t i onal capa ci ty t o m eet co n tr ac tual o b li g ati o n s from Ju n e , 19 9 6 thro u g h S ep tem b er, 1996.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $27, 500. 00 4. Pr ej ud gm ent i nt er es tatthe r at e of 8% perannum on t he $1, 500, 000. 00 pa ym entt o G E f orthe r epai rt o the uni ts i nce the dat e of paymenti n thi s cas e ( $600, 000. 00 on 3/ 13/ 1998, $450, 000. 00 on 9/ 9/ 1998, and $450, 000. 00 on 11/ 21/ 1998) pur s uantt o § 75- 17- 7 of the M i ssi ssi ppi C ode of 1972. T he C our tcal cul at es the pr e- j udgm enti nt er es tt o be.
. . . . $748, 000. 00 T ot al
. . . . . . . . . . . $2, 501, 306. 56 1 2
. T h e C o u rt fin d s th a t G re e n w o o d U til iti e s is n o t e n tit led to a ll am o u n ts i ncl uded on the G E i nvoi ce f oraddi t i onal r epai rw or k out s i de the s cope o f th e r e p a i rc o n tr a c t , a s M r . J o h n Nu g e n to f GE t e s t i f

i e d th a ti t e m 1 ( $2, 292. 10) w as notr el at ed t o the over s peed event , a nd thathe di d not k n o w w h e th e r it e m 1 0 ($ 6 1 ,3 7 9 .8 7 ) w a s re late d to th e o v e rsp e e d e v e n t. 13. T he C our tfi nds t hatG r eenw ood U t i l i t i es i s notent i t l ed t o t he col l ect i ve cos tt o pur chas e addi t i onal capaci ty t o m eetcontr actual obl i gat i ons f r om J ul y 1997 thr ou gh O ct ober , 1998, orr evenue s l os tf orr educe d capa ci ty s al es t o M E A M f r om J ul y, 1998 thr ough Sept ember1998, as G r eenw ood U t i l i t i es had a duty t o mi t i gat e i t s da m ages , w hi ch i tf ai l ed to d o . See F

[ r ] iers on v. D el

ta O utdoor

, I nc. , 79 4 S o. 2d 220 (¶ 14) (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ); W

al l v. Sw il ley , 5 6 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 2 , 1 2 5 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ); L ovet t v. E . L . G ar ner

, I nc. , 5 1 1 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 5 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). 14. T he C our tf

i nds t hatpr e-

j udgm enti nt er es ts houl d be aw arded on the cos tt o r epai rthe turbi ne f r om the dat e of

paym ent. T hi s amount w as know n t o the part i es . T he def endant s as s ertthatt hey shoul d notbe l i a bl e f orpr e - j ud gmen ti nt e r e s tdu e t o the un de t e r mi ne d c on tr i bu t i on o f G re e n w o o d U til iti e s to its o w n d a m a g e . In th e C o u rt’s v iew , this reli an ce o n the n eg li g en ce o f G ree n w o o d U ti li ti es is m isplace d
. T h ere w as ne vera ny e vi dence thatM r . Shaw ’ s r eadi ngs w er e i ncorr ectorthat he w as negl i genti n any w ay. A ccor di ngl y, i tw as unr eas onabl e f orthe defend ants t o rel y o n G reenw oo d U t i l i t i es’ all eged neg l i gen ce as a d e fe n se . T h e p re -ju d g m e n t in ter e st is a w a rd e d to c o m p e n sa te G r eenw ood U t i l i t i es f

orthe l os s of

us e of i t s m oney. 15. T he C our tf

i nds thatthe contr actbetw een G r eenw ood U t i l i t i es and U pchur ch pr ovi ded f

oran aw ar d of

att orney’ s fee s . A ccor di ngl y, the

### This finaljudgm ent in f avor of GE and aga ins t Gree nwood was ent er ed on Oc tobe r 3 

### 18, 2004. During thepende ncy of thi s ap peal, GE was dis mi ss ed a s a party by order

of a three-ju stice pan el of th is Co urt. 8

C our tw i l l conducta pos tj udgm enthear i ng t o de t erm i ne the amountof at t orney’s f

ees. 1 6
. It is c lea r th a t G re e n w o o d U til iti e s n e v e r p a id the $ 1 1 9 ,8 3 5 .0 0 o w e d to U pch urch an d T ri con ex. A ccordi ng l y, U pch urch an d T ri con ex ’s m o tio n to a m e n d is g ra n ted . T h e a m o u n t o f $ 1 1 9 ,8 3 5 .0 0 is a w a rd e d to U pchur ch and T r i conex w hi ch s hal l be s et - of f a gai ns tt he j udgm ent agai ns tU pchur ch and Tr i conex. 1 7
. A cc o rd in g ly, Jud g m en t sha ll b e e n tered in fav o r of the P lai n ti ff, G r eenw ood U t i l i t i es C om m i s s i on, and aga i ns tU pchur ch and Tr i conex i n t he t ot al amount of

$2, 381, 471. 56. 18. T he ( s i c) w as no di s put e thatG r eenw ood U t i l i t i es i s l i abl e t o G E on the count er cl ai m of

$289, 478. 83. A ccor di ngl y, J udgm ents hal l be ent er ed i n f avorof G E and aga i ns tG r eenw ood U t i l i t i es i n t he t ot al amount of $ 2 8 9 ,4 7 8 .8 3 .[ ] 3 ¶10. O n O ct ober 25, 2004, U pchur ch and T r i conex f i l ed a M ot i on t o A m end the Fi ndi ngs of FactPur s uantt o R ul e 52( b) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. U pchur ch and T ri c o n e x s ta te d in th e irm o tio n , in tera lia : Speci f i cal l y, the f

ol l ow i ng Fi ndi ngs of

Factar e nots uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evidence an d shou l d be am end ed w i th the con cl usi on s based o n such fi nd i ng s: A
. T h at M r. S h aw too k rea d ing s on N o v em b er 10 , 19 9 5 , o ff of an auxi l i ary s haf

tas di r ect ed by M r . N i aki an; B
. T hatM r . Shaw co rr ect l y t ook the r eadi ngs he r eport ed and w hi ch w er e r el i ed upon by G U , G E , and Tri conex; C
. T hatM r . Shaw w as compet entt o p erf orm the t as k of t aki ng acc ur at e turbi ne s peed r eadi ngs f orw hi ch he w as p r o v i d e d b y GU; D
. T hatT r i conex’ s cont r ol s s ys t em w as def ect i ve on N ovember10, 1995; and E
. O th e r re late d fin d in g s o f f a c t a n d c o n c lu sio n s d e taile d in the at t ache d M emora ndum of Evi dence and A uthor i t i es Subm i t t ed i n S uppor tof U pchur ch Pl um i ng, Inc
. ’ s ( s i c)

### Tri cone x’s bri ef st at es : “ Tri cone x has ass ume d thedef ens e of and i s indemnif

ying 4 

### Upchurch s inc e a lleve nts com plaine d of in theunderlying ac ti on occur re d whileTri cone x was onsi tete sting t

he c omput eriz ed c ontrols syst em for theturbine under

the provis ions of theUp c hur c h c ontr a c t

expre s s ly i nc or

po r at e d int o theTri c on e x s ub c ontr a c t . ” Th e r e f ore , we will refer to Trico nexandUp church co llectivelyas “Trico nex .” 9 and Tri conex Sys t ems, Inc
. ’ s M ot i on t o A m end Fi ndi ngs of FactPur s uantt o R ul e 52( b) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. ¶11
. O n F ebruary 1, 20 05 , Judg e H i nes hea rd G reenw oo d’s M oti on forA t t orney’s Fees. O n J ul y 14, 2005, J udge H i nes ent er ed: ( 1) an or derdenyi ng the M ot i on t o A m end the F in d in g s o f F a c t filed b y U p c h u rc h a n d T ric o n e x ; (2 ) a n o rd e r a w a rd in g a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s to G r eenw ood; ( 3) and f

i nal j udgm enti n f

avorof G r eenw ood and aga i ns tU pchurc h and T r i conex, “i n the amountof $2, 381, 471. 56 purs uantt o t he C our t ’ s fi ndi ngs on O ct ober13, 2004, pl us att orney f

ees i n the amoun t of $2 40, 980. 40 f ora t ot al amount ow ed of $ 2 ,6 2 2 ,4 5 1 .9 6
. . . w ith p o st-ju d g m e n t in ter e st a t th e a n n u a l ra te o f 8 % u n til p a id . P o stj udgm enti nt er es ts hal l run on the or i gi nal j udgm entf r om O ct ober1 3, 2004 and on the
a tto rn e y fe e s fr o m th e d a te o f t h is o rd e r.” ¶12. O n J ul y 21, 2005, U pchur ch and T r i conex f i l ed a pos t

j udgm entM ot i on f

or J udgm ent
as a M att erof L aw or , A l t ernat i vel y, M ot i on t o A l t er , A m end orV aca t e the J udgm ent , or M o tio n fo r N e w T ri a l, w h ic h J u d g e H in e s d e n ie d o n A u g u s t 3 , 2 0 0 5
. ¶ 1 3
. U p c h u rc h a n d T ric o n e x th e n tim e ly p e rfe c ted th e ir a p p e a l to th is C o u rt. 4

### 10 DI S CU S S I ON ¶14. E i ghti s s ues ar e bef or e thi s C our t : ( 1) w hetherthe f actual det erm i nat i ons m ade by the trial c o u rt a re m a n ife stly w ro n g ; (2 ) w h e th e r th e M iss iss ip p i U n ifo rm C o m m e rc ial C o d e is appl i cabl e; ( 3) w het her ob t ai ni ng as s i s t ance f r om G r eenw ood dur i ng on- s i t e t es t i ng of t he contr ol s ys t ems w as a br eac h of contr actby T r i conex; ( 4) w hetherG r eenw ood’ s pr ovi di ng per s onnel and instrum ent at i on f oron- s i t e t es t i ng w ai ved the contr actual r equi r ementf or T r i conex t o pr ovi de al l per s onnel and i ns trum ent at i on; ( 5) w hetherG r eenw ood can r ecove r
on it s neg l i gence theory; ( 6) w hetheratt orneys ’ f ees ar e al l ow ed by contr act ; ( 7) w hether ther e w as s uf

f i ci entproof as t o the r eas onabl enes s of att orneys ’ f

ees ; and, ( 8) w hether G re e n w o o d m e t th e le g a l p re re q u is ite s to b e e n title d to a n a w a rd o f p re ju d g m e n t in te re s t. ¶15. Q ues t i ons of l aw ar e r evi ew ed by t hi s C our tusi ng a de novo s ta n d a rd
. A & F P r o p s ., L L C v. Madison Cou n t

y B d. of Su

pervisors , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ); H a rra h ’s V i cks burg Corp. v. P ennebaker , 812 So. 2d 163, 170 ( M i s s . 2001)
. O n the ot her hand,

“ [w ]he n e v e r th is C o u rt c o n sid e rs o n a p p e a l a trial ju d g e ' s fin d in g s o f fa c t, w e a p p ro p ria tely af f or d def er ent i al tr eatm ent . E ven t ho ug h w e qui t e of t en r evi ew ci r cui tcourtcas es bas ed up on j udgm ent s ent er ed af t era j ury tr i al , w heneve rw e ar e ca l l ed upon t o cons i dert he f i ndi ngs of

f actof a ci r cui tj udge s i t t i ng w i thouta j ury, thatci r cui tj udge is en t i t l ed t o t he
sam e deference con cerni ng h i s/her fi nd i ng s of factas is aff orded to a chan cel l or, w ho al m ost al w ays s i t s , w i thouta j ury. ” Cit y of G r eenvil

le v. Jones , 925 So. 2d 106, 109 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng Cit

y o f Jackso n v. P erry , 7 6 4 S o . 2 d 3 7 3 , 3 7 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ); P uckett v. Stuckey , 633 S o . 2 d 9 7 8 , 9 8 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 3 )). I n o ther w o rds, i f th e tri al j u d g e’s find ing s o f fact are

### 11

supp ort ed b y sub st anti al , credi ble and rea so n ab le ev iden ce , w e m u st afford d efe ren ce to the se f i ndi ngs on appea l , a nd thus , w e w i l l notdi s turb the tr i al j udge’ s f i ndi ngs of

f act“unl es s t hey
ar e mani f

es t l y w r ong, cl ear l y er r oneous or an err oneous l egal s t andar d w as appl i ed. ” P erry , 764 So. 2d at376 ( ci t i ng P u c k e tt , 6 3 3 S o . 2 d a t 9 8 2 ; B e ll v. City o f B a y S t. L o u is , 467 So. 2d 657, 661 ( M i s s . 1985) )
. T hi s C our tr evi ew s a tr i al j udge’ s a w ar d of att orneys ’ f

ees and p re ju d g m e n t i n te re s t f

o r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Mi cr otek Med. , I nc. v. 3M Co. , 942 So. 2d 122, 1 3 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ); Mab us v. Mab us , 910 So. 2d 486, 488 ( M i s s . 2005) (ci t i ng Mauck v. Colum bus H

otel Co. , 7 4 1 S o . 2 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ); B r edem eierv. Jacks on , 689 So. 2d 7 7 0 , 7 7 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 )). ¶16. W e w i l l r es t at e the i s s ues f orcl ar i ty dur i ng the cour s e of ourdi s cus s i on. I . W HE TH ER TH E FACTUAL DETERM I NATI ON S M ADE BY T HE T RI AL CO UR T AR E M AN I F E S T L Y WRON G. ¶ 1 7
. C o n c e rn in g th is fi rs t is s u e , T ri c o n e x a rg u e s , in tera lia , tha t th e trial ju d g e e rro n e o u sly d eterm ined that S h aw too k h is spe ed rea d ing s o ff th e a u x il iary sh aft, rath er th an d ir ec tl y o ff the turbi ne s haf

t , dur i ng the t es t i ng conduct ed on N ovember10 , 1 995. O n the otherhand, G r eenw ood ar gues thatthe evi dence i s notconcl us i ve as t o w hetherShaw t ook hi s r eadi ngs of f the auxi l i ary s haf

tordi r ect l y of

f the turbi ne s haf

t . H ow ever , G r eenw ood ar gues t hat even i f the tr i al j udge di d err , thi s i s s ue i s notcontr ol l i ng as t o w hetherT r i conex br eac hed th e c o n tra c t. ¶18. A f

t er denyi ng T r i conex’ s M ot i on t o A m end the Fi ndi ngs of Fact , J udge H i nes s t at ed in h is O rde r:

### 12

U pchur ch and Tri conex i n t hei rm emora ndum i n s uppor tof the mot i on r epea t f r o m th e tr a n s c r i p tth e f

o l l o wi n g t e s t i mo n y o f

J e rry S h a w: Q
. A n d w h e re d id y o u lo c a te y o u rse lf w ith th e s tro b e lig h t? A
. I t ’ s a l i t t l e compar t m entbe hi nd the acc es s ory ge arbox. B etw een ther e and the turbi ne. Q
. W as ther e anybody w ho t ol d you t o s el ectthatpl ace ? A
. W e ll, I w a s – I d o n ’t re m e m b e r i n – w h o p a rt ic u la r. I s uppos e – H ami d, I s uppos e. T hey w ant ed t o geton t hat sh a ft. Q
. W hen you s ay “geton thats haf t , ” w hatar e you r ef

err i ng t o? A
. I t ’ s t he s haftbetw een the ac ces s ory gearbox and the turbi ne. Q
. So t hi s w oul d have been the ac tual turbi ne s haf tthatyou w er e goi ng t o be s hi ni ng the s tr obe l i ghton. A
. W e ll – Q. O ra p or ti on. A
. R ig h t. T h a t’s c o rre c t. T ran script 16 5 :2-2 0 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T he C ou rtacc ept s thi s t es t i m ony and f i nds as a f

actthe s peed meas ur ement w a s ta k e n fro m so m e th in g a ttac h e d to th e sh a ft, b u t n o t th e sh a ft itse lf. It is onl y l ogi cal thatH ami d N i aki an w oul d t el l M r . Shaw t o t ake the meas ur ement ther e s i nce thati s w her e Tri conex pl ace d the s peed s ens ordevi ce. T he C our tr ej ect s the t es t i m ony of L ane Ri char d r egar di ng the pl ace m entof th e stro b e d e v ice b e c a u se h e w a s n o t pr e se n t w h e n the ev e n ts o c c u rre d , a n d h is t es t i m ony i s ther ef

or e notas r el i abl e as M r . Shaw ’ s t es t i m ony. L i kew i s e, the C our tr ej ect s t he di r ectt es t i m ony of B obby B ennett , H ami d N i aki an, E dgar A l an W al t er s , be caus e none of i tw as bas ed upon eye w i tnes s obs ervat i on, but ra th e r w h a t e a c h w itn e ss h e a rd fro m so m e o n e e lse . T h e C o u rt a lso re jec ts T r i conex’ s a r gum entthatM r . Shaw di d notknow how t o us e the s tr obe devi ce. M r . Shaw demonstr at ed l at erthathe knew how t o us e the s tr obe devi ce. See T r ans cr i pt170. T he ar gu m entpr es ent ed by U pchur ch and Tr i conex i gnor es a f undament al iss u e . T rico n ex de sign ed th e sy stem using th e sp ee d of an au x il iary sh aft to m eas ur e the s peed of

the mai n turbi ne sha f

tw i thoutadj us t i ng fort he f actthat the s haf t s di d notope r at e atthe s ame spe ed. T hi s f ai l ur e occ urr ed des pi t e the f actthatthi s var i at i on i n s peed w as det ai l ed i n t he G ener al E l ectr i c C om pany

### 13

m anual w hi ch Tri conex us ed i n the des i gn. T hi s see m s t o the C our tw oul d be an elem en tary fac t t o an en g inee r. T ric o n e x d e sig n e d a sy ste m a n d a llo w e d it t o b e in sta lle d a n d o p e ra ted w ith such a fun dam ental fl aw that i ts m alfun ct i on caused a cat astrophic l oss. T r i conex c annothi de behi nd the f actthatthey f

ai l ed t o br i ng the pr oper e q u ip m e n t o r su ffic ien t p e rso n n e l to th e site . If T ric o n e x h a d p ro p e rly de s i gn e d the s ys t e m an d br ou gh tthe p r op e re qu i pmen ta nd p e r s on ne l t o t he si t e, the d am age to the turbine w ou l d n ever hav e o ccurr ed. T his con st i tutes a br eac h of

t heircontr actual obl i gat i ons . A ccor di ngl y, U pchur ch’ s and T r i conex’ s m ot i on i s deni ed. ¶19. T r i conex ci t es s peci f i c t es t i m ony i n the tr ans cr i ptand r ecor d i n an ef f or tt o pr ove that Ju d g e H ines e rred in h is fi n d ing s o f fac t. T ri co n ex a rgu es that the testi m o n y sh o w s, co n tr ary t o t he t r i al j udge’ s f

i ndi ngs , thatShaw t ook hi s r eadi ngs di r ect l y of f the turbi ne s haf

tr ather than the auxi l i ary shaft
. T r i conex f ur therar gues thatthe evi dence es t abl i s hed thatShaw unfor eseeably provi ded err on eou s turbi ne spee d readi ng s on w hic h everyone i nvol ved r el i ed. Fi nal l y, T r i conex a r gues thatthe t es t i m ony pr es ent ed attr i al demonstr at ed thatShaw w as not
c o m p e ten t to o p e ra te a S tro b o tac in stru m e n t. O n th e o th e r h a n d , G re e n w o o d p re s e n ts po rt i on s of t est i m on y thati tcl ai m s suppo rtthe tr i al j ud ge’s fi nd i ng s. E ven tho ug h thi s case is o b v io u sly fac t-in ten siv e , w e w ill se t ou t th e fa c ts a s s u c c in c tly a s p o ss ib le, a n d q u o te o n ly the t es t i m ony w e deem cr i t i cal t o t hi s di s cus s i on, s o as t o avoi d endl es s quot at i ons f r om t he
r ecor d. ¶ 2 0
. W i th th i s b e i n g s a i d , we q u o t e h e r e p o r t i o n s o f th e t e s t i mo n y o f

L a n e Ri c h a r d , th e GE
e n g in e e r: Q
. D o you r eca l l D ean W al t er s i s s ui ng a re por tt o you s ayi ng t hatw hen he w entt o the pl ant , he and J erry Shaw , he t ook hi s handhel d di gi t al t ach

### 14 a n d Je rry S h a w to o k th e G re e n w o o d U til iti e s s tro b e a n d th e y b o th t es t ed them agai ns tthe boi l erf eed pump? A
. W ell , y o u k n o w , a ctua ll y , Je rry S h aw – I’v e n ev er h ea rd th e n am e Je rry S h aw ex ce p t i n p rep ara ti o n for this. S o he didn ’tm en ti o n Jerry S h aw ’s name, buthe di d m ent i on he gotw i th t he guy w i th G r eenw ood thathad us ed the s tr obot ac. A nd i ts ounds f ami l i arthatthey w entt o s om e pi ece of equipm ent i n the pl ant and co m pared speed values. Q
. A n d they g o t th e sa m e n u m b er. A
. S ee m s li k e the y d id, yes , sir
. Q
. W h ich su g g e ste d w h o e v e r w a s o p e ra tin g th a t th in g w a s o p e ra tin g it p ro p e rly , co rre c t? A
. Y es, si r. Q
. A nd then l at eron t hatday, they w entoutand they both s atdow n on the g en era tor. A
. Y es , s i r , they di d. Q
. A nd M r . W al t ers conf i r m ed thathe had a s peed r eadi ng on the gener at orof 90 0, and he l ooked overand the G r eenw ood U t i l i t i es empl oyee had a speed r eadi ng on the s tr obe of 900, orthatw as c o mmu n i c a t e d t o h i m. A
. Y e a h , th a t’ s c o rr e c t. A n d a c tu a lly, it

jus t so h a

p p e n e d th e sp e e d

ra tio of thatauxi l i ar

y gears haf

tm at ches alm os tt o the r pm the s peed of the g e n e r a to ra s w e ll. So, agai n, T ri conex’ s r eadoutw as exac t l y w hat thes e guys w er e r eadi ng, exce ptthey w er e on the gene r at orr ot or . A nd atthe t i m e the G r eenw ood per s on, I thi nk, m ade the comm entt o D ean, “See, r i ghton the money. ” A nd that ’ s w hen D ean s ai d, “W ai ta s econd, m an. R i ghton the money, yeah, butther e’ s a gea rbox betw een us and th e tu rb in e .” Q
. B utm y poi nti s , i s thati f the G E empl oyee us i ng t he s tr obe i s s t andi ng n ex t t o D ea n W alt ers u sing the d igit al h an d h eld tach o m eter an d they ’re gett i ng the s ame num ber , thatdoes n’ ts ugges tthatthe G r eenw ood U t i l i t i es em pl oyee w as doi ng anythi ng w r ong i n hi s us e of the s tr obe, d o e s it? A
. T h a t’s c o rre c t. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶21. I ti s r eadi l y appar entfr om t he r ecor d t hatJudge H i nes , as the f act - f i nderi n thi s bench tr i al , act ed w i thi n hi s di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng t hatS haw m us thave pl ace d hi s St r obot ac on the
a ux i l i a ry s ha f

t . J ud ge Hi ne s d i d no tp ul l thi s i de a o uto f a h a t ; Ri c ha r d t e s t i f

i e d t hatt he

### 15

s peed of the auxi l i ary s haf

t , w hi ch has a 1: 1. 35 r at i o, m at ched the over s peed. T he turbi ne
s haf thas a 1: 1 r at i o. J udge H i nes , as the f act fi nd er, had the di s cr et i on t o di s r egar d as
un rel i able the tes t i m on y o f w i tnesses w ho w ere notpresentdu ri ng the tes t i ng . W e l i kew i se f i nd thatJ udge H i nes act ed w i thi n hi s di s cr et i on i n f i ndi ng thatJ erry Shaw w as compet ent t o us e the Str obot ac i ns trum entand thathe us ed i tpr oper l y. I n s um , aft er a met i cul ous
r evi ew of

the ent i r e r ecor d, i ncl udi ng the t es t i m ony of the w i tnes s es , w e ar e l ef tw i t h t he in e sc a p a b le c o n c lu sio n tha t Ju d g e H in e s’s fin d in g s o f fa c t are su p p o rte d b y s u b s tan tial,
c re d ib le a n d re a so n a b le e v id e n c e ; th e re fo re , w e w ill n o t d istu rb th e se fin d in g s o n a p p e a l, sin c e th e y a re n o t m a n ife stly w ro n g o r c lea rly e rro n e o u s. T h is iss u e is th u s w ith o u t m e rit. I I . W HET HER T HE M I S S I S S I P P I UNI F ORM COM M ER CI AL CO DE I S APP LI CABLE. ¶2 2. T r i conex a r gu e s tha t the c on tr ol s ys t e m ha d no t be e n “ de l i ve r e d” a t the t i me of t he turb ine d am ag e b ec au se th e s y ste m w as stil l bein g test ed ; acc o rdin g ly, th e tri al co u rt ’s f i ndi ng thatt he sys t em w as def ect i ve i s cl ear l y err oneous . T r i conex f ur theras s ert s thatthe U n if o rm C o m m erc ial C o d e (U C C ) pro v ides that there ca n b e n o b re a c h o f c o n tr ac t w h ere the goods i n que s t i on ha ve notbe en t ender ed, a nd Tr i conex ar gues thatthe s ys t em had not b e e n “ te n d e re d ” a t th e tim e o f t h e te s tin g . See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 7 5 -2-5 0 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶23. T r i conex f

urthera r gues thatG r eenw ood ha s f ai l ed t o pr ove that i t s damages , w hi ch
ar e al l cons equent i al damages , w er e f or es eea bl e and w er e pr oxi m at el y caus ed by Tri conex, beca us e i tw as notf

or es eea bl e thatG ree nw ood w oul d of f eran empl oyee w ho w as i ncompet entt o as s i s ti n the t es t i ng and w ho w oul d m ake a m i s t ake.

### Gre enwood’ s brie f s tate s: “O nly4 0% of the c ontrac t pric e r el at ed t o Tri cone x 5 

### hardware, w ith th e remainin g 6 0% cov er in g th e follo win g ‘serv ice’ catego ries: site inve stigati ons; ini ti aldes ign; m ec hani ca l c abinet as se mbly; e le ctri ca l c abinet as se mbly; spe ci fi cation s; softw are dev elop ment; f ac tor y ac cepta ncete st ; f ie ld de si gn pac kage ; a

se cond fa ct ory a cc ept anc e t es t; si teac ceptancete st ; s tart up and c omm is sion ing; and proj ec t do cumentation .” 16 ¶24. G r eenw ood ar gues thatthe U C C i s notappl i cabl e s i nce the tr i al cour tbase d i t s rul i ng on M i s s i s s i ppi gener al contr actl aw . G r eenw ood f ur therar gues thatthe contr acti s notf or the s al e of

goods ; i ti s a compet i t i vel y- bi d cons truct i on contr actf orthe spec i al l y- des i gned
s ys t em. G r eenw ood a l s o a r gues thatthi s C ourt ’ s m i xed- tr ans act i ons t es ti n J. O . Hoo ker & Sons, I nc. v. R ober t

s Cabinet

Co. , I nc. , 683 So. 2d 396, 400 ( M i s s . 1996) appl i es . I n J . O. Hoo ker thi s C our ts t at ed: [ W ] hetherornotthe contr acts houl d be i nt erpr et ed undert he U C C orgener al contr actl aw s houl d depend upon the natur e of the contr actand al s o upon w hetherthe d isp u te i n ques t i on pr i m ar i l y conce rns the goods f urni s hed orthe se rv ice s re n d e re d u n d e r th e c o n tra c t. I d. (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l); s ee al s o A nders on Const

. Co. , Inc. v. L

yon Metal

P r oduct s, I nc. , 3 7 0 S o . 2 d 9 3 5 , 9 3 8 (M iss. 1 9 7 9 ). ¶ 2 5
. G re e n w o o d a ss e rts th a t o n ly fo rty p e rc e n t o f th e c o n tra c t d e a ls w ith h a rd w a re , w h ile
s i xty per centdeal s w i th s ervi ces . G r eenw ood f ur theras s ert s thatthe di s put e i s overt he 5 des i gn of the s of tw ar e and the t es t i ng thatoccurr ed. ¶26. I n acc or dance w i th J. O . Hooker , w e fin d th a t th e U C C d o e s n o t a p p ly
. U sin g th is C our t ’ s m i xed- tr ans act i ons t es t , the di s put e i n t he cas e sub j udi ce c l ear l y conce rns t es t i ng of the s ys t em, w hi ch i s a servi ce. A ddi t i onal l y, t hi s C our tfi nds t hatt he contr actas a w hol e, as

### 17

e v id e n c e d b y G re e n w o o d ’s d e m o n stra tio n th a t six ty p e rc e n t o f th e c o n tra c t re late d to
s ervi ces , w as f

orthe s peci al i zed de s i gn of the turbi ne by Tri conex. T her ef or e, w e f i nd that th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I I I . W HE T HE R OB TA I NI NG AS S I S TA NCE F RO M GR E E NWOOD DUR I NG ON - S I TE TES TI NG OF THE CO NTRO L S YST EM W AS A B RE ACH OF CONT RACT BY TR I CONE X. ¶27. T r i conex a r gues thatthe contr acti n ques t i on provi ded t hat“[ a] tt i m es t he O w ner m ay p ro v id e p e rs o n n e l to a s s is t th e C o n tr a c to r’ s fi e ld s e rv ic e p e rs o n n e l d u ri n g o n -s ite te s tin g .” T r i conex f

ur therar gues t hatG r eenw ood di d notobj ectt o pr ovi di ng Shaw , and thatthi s t ype of as s i s t ance f

r om Shaw i s cus t om ary i n the i ndus try. ¶28. G r eenw ood ar gues thatthe tr i al j udge hel d thatT r i conex br eac hed the contr actnot by
r eques t i ng as s i s t ance f

r om Shaw , butby i ns t al l i ng a def ect i ve contr ol sys t em. G r eenw ood f ur therar gues t hatt he contr actcl ear l y st at ed t hatT r i conex ha d s ol e r es pons i bi l i ty f ort he t es t i ng. C ont r act103, A r t i cl e 6, s t at ed: B. LAB OR , M ATER I ALS A ND EQU I PM ENT: 2. U nles s ot herw i se specif i ed i n the G eneral R equ i rem ents , C o n tra c to r s h a ll f

u rn ish a n d

a ss u m e fu ll re sp o n sib ili ty fo r a ll m a te ri a ls , e q u ip m e n t, labor , tr ansport at i on, c o n s tru c tio n e q u ip m e n t a n d m a c h in e ry , to o ls , app l i ances, fuel , t el ephone, t empora ry f aci l i t i es and al l other f aci l i t i es and i nci dent al s nece s s ary f orthe f urni s hi ng, p e rf o r m a n c e , t es t i ng , s t art - up and compl et i on of the W or k. (Em ph asi s added ). A dd i t i on al l y, the co ntr actst at es: B
. O n- Si t e Test i ng:

. . . .

### 18 3
. P ro v id e a ll l a b o r a n d tec h n ic a l d ire c tio n to tes t an d sta rt-u p a ll com bu st i on turbi ne-gen erat or syst em s.

. . . . 7
. S e rv ice p e rso n n e l sh a ll re p o rt w ith a n y te st e q u ip m e n t o r to o ls re q u ire d to p lac e th e c o n tro l e q u ip m e n t an d sy ste m s in to oper at i on. G r eenw ood al s o ar gues thatf orT r i conex t o r el y upon the pr ovi s i on pr ovi di ng thatt he

“ O w nermay p r ov i de p e r s onnel t o assist ” ( emphasi s added) , T r i conex musthave a s ked M ar i on Fl anaga n, the pr oj ectm anage r , f orperm i s s i on, becaus e he w as the onl y per s on w ho h ad au tho ri ty as the o w n er. ¶2 9. I n t he end, i ti s i r r el evantw het herTr i c on e x a s ke d G r eenw ood f or as s i s t ance . A c c o rd in g to th e p la in lan g u a g e o f th e c o n tra c t, T ric o n e x h a d th e b u rd e n o f p ro v id in g a ll lab o r, to o ls, a n d tec h n ica l as sis tan c e fo r th e tes tin g . In o th e r w o rd s, T ric o n e x h a d so le
re sp o n sib ili ty fo r th e tes tin g . T h u s, w e fin d th a t th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I V. W HET HER GRE EN W OOD’ S P ROVI DI NG P ER S ONNE L A ND I NS T RU M E NT AT I ON F OR ON - S I T E T E S T I NG W A I VE D T HE CO NTRAC TUAL REQ UI REM ENT FOR TRI CO NEX TO P ROVI DE AL L P ER S ONNE L A ND I NS TR UM EN TA TI ON. ¶ 3 0
. T ric o n e x a rg u e s th a t th e c o n tra c t allo w e d f o r a s s is ta n c e b y G re e n w o o d p e rso n n e l. Fur ther , Tr i conex ar gues thatG r eenw ood ne verobj ect ed t o Shaw ’ s a s s i s t ance and, ther ef or e,
w ai ved t he contr actual r equi r ementf orT r i conex t o pr ovi de al l per s onnel and i ns trum ent at i on. Thi s Courtha s s t at ed thatthe act i ons and patt ern of conductof

the part i es d e te rm in e if

a w a iv e r o r m o d if

ic a tio n o c c u rr e d
. S a n de rs o n Fa rm s v. G a tlin , 848 So. 2d 828, 837 ( M i s s . 2003)
. T o det erm i ne the poi ntatw hi ch any w ai veroccur s , the C our ts houl d l ook t o the act i ons of

the r el evantpa r ty a f

t erthatpa r ty ha s s uf

f i ci enti nf or m at i on t o be on not i ce

### Greenwo od ’s eng ineerin g firm w as Burns an d McD onnell o f Kan sas City , Misso uri, 6 

### wh ich also wro te the co ntract. 19 o f t h e a lle g e d d e v ia tio n fr o m th e c o n tr a c tu a l d u ty . B re n t T o w in gCo ., In c . v. S c o tt P etroleu m Corp . , 735 So. 2d 355, 3 58 (M i s s . 1999)
. I f , af t eracqui r i ng know l edge of t he d e v iatio n f

ro m a k n o w n rig h t ar ticu late d in th e c o n tra c t, a p a rty fa ils to in sis t o n its
c o n tra c tu a l rig h ts, o r a c ts in c o n sis ten tly w ith su c h rig h ts, th e n th a t p a rty w a iv e s th e rig h t to
re q u ir e s u c h p e rf

o rm a n c e . I

d. ; S a n de rs o n Fa r ms , 848 So. 2d at837- 38. ¶ 3 1
. T ric o n e x a rg u e s th a t G re e n w o o d h a d n o tice o f d e v iatio n fro m th e c o n tra c t o n th e d a te
o f t esti n g an d , b y fa ili n g to o b ject t o p rov iding S h aw for testi n g , w aive d T ri co n ex ’s obl i gat i on to prov i de al l per s onnel f ort es t i ng. H ow ever , G r eenw ood ar gues thatthe tr i al j udge di d notbas e hi s deci s i on on t he per s onnel i s s ue, buti nst ead upon Tr i conex’ s des i gn and i ns t al l at i on of

a de f ect i ve contr ol s ys t em. Fur therm or e, G r eenw ood a r gues that no “know n devi at i on” occ urr ed bec aus e the contr acts peci f i cal l y s t at es w hen a w ai ver or amendm entm ay occ ur. G ree nw ood al s o ar gues that , acc or di ng t o the l anguage of t he
c o n tra c t, o n ly the en g in e e r fo r G re e n w o o d h a d the au th o rity to m o d ify th e c o n tra c t. 6 G re e n w o o d d ire c ts th is C o u rt to th re e se c tio n s o f th e c o n tra c t: A RT I CL E 3 – CO N TR AC T DO CU M ENTS: I NTEN T, AM EN D I N G , RE U SE B
. A M EN DI NG AN D SU PP LEM ENTI NG CO NTR AC T DO CU M EN TS: 1. T he C ont r actD ocument s m ay be a m ended t o pr ovi de f or addi t i ons , del et i ons and re vi s i ons i n t he W or k ort o m odi f y the t erm s and condi t i ons ther eof i n one orm or e of the f ol l ow i ng w ays: a . A fo rm a l W ritten A m e n d m e n t. b
. A C h a n g e O rd e r ( p u rs u a n t to P a ra g ra p h 1 0 .A .4 ,)

. . . .

### 20 3. I n addi t i on, the r equi r ement s of the C ontr actD ocument s m ay be su p p lem en ted, an d m ino r va ri ati o n s a n d d ev iat ion s in the W o rk m ay be a uthor i zed, i n the f ol l ow i ng w ay: a. A F iel d O rde r (pu rsua n t t o P ara g rap h 9
. E ). b. E ngi neer ’ s w r i t t en i nt erpr et at i on orcl ar i f i cat i on (pu rsua n t t o P ara g rap h 9
. D ).

. . . . AR T I CL E 9

– E NGI NE E R’ S S T AT US DUR I NG C ONS T RU CT I ON: E
. A U T H O R I Z E D V A R I A T I O N S I N W O R K : E ngi neerm ay author i ze m i norvar i at i ons i n the W or k f r om the r equi rem ent s of the C ontr act D ocument s w hi ch do noti nvol ve an a dj us t m enti n the C ontr actPr i ce orthe C ontr actT i m e and ar e cons i s t entw i th the over al l i nt entof the C ontr actD ocument s . T hes e m ay be ac compl i s hed by a Fi el d O r derand w il l b e b ind ing on O w n er, an d also o n C o n tr ac tor w h o sha ll p e rfo rm the W or k i nvol ved pr om pt l y.

. . . . I
. P RO J E CT RE P RE S E NT AT I ON: 1. O w nerm ay f

urni s h R es i dentPr oj ectR epr es ent at i ve and as s i s t ant s t o ass i s tE ngi neeri n observi ng t he per f or m ance of the W or k.

. . . . d
. R e sid e n t P rojec t R e p re se n ta tiv e w ill n o t h a v e a u th o rity to

p e rm it an y d e v iatio n fro m th e C o n tra c t D o c u m e n ts, e x c e p t w ith the c o n cu rren ce o f E n g inee r. G ree n w o o d furthe r arg u es th at th e c o n tr ac t spe cifi ca ll y ad d resse d the c o n tr ac tor’s
res po nsi bil i t i es: AR TI CLE 6

– CO NTR AC TOR ’ S RES PON SI BI LI TI ES 2. U nl es s ot herw i s e s peci f i ed i n the G ener al R equi r ement s , C ontr act or sh a ll fu rn ish a n d a ss u m e fu ll res p o n sib ili ty fo r a ll m a ter ials , eq u ip m e n t, l abor
. . . nece s s ary f

orthe f urni s hi ng, per f

or m ance , t es t i ng, s t art - up and compl et i on of

the W or k. ¶32. W e agr ee w i th G r eenw ood that T r i conex’ s r es pons i bi l i t i es acc or di ng t o the contr act
w e re n o t w a iv e d
. T h e co n tra c t state d tha t G re e n w o o d em p lo y e e s c o u ld a ss ist, an d S h a w d id

### In h is fin din gs of fact an d con clusio ns of law , the trial ju dg e stated, inter a lia , that 7 

### “[ u] nder it s contra ct

Tric onex was obligate d to deli ver a working sys te m. The sys te m t hat was in stalled w as defectiv e. Acco rdin g ly , th e Co urt fin ds th at Trico nexis liable to Gre enwood Util itie s f

or Brea ch of

Cont ra ct .”Al so, i t i s t o be r em em ber ed t hat Gre enwood hadcontracted w ith Upchurch , wh ich inturnsub contracted w ith T ricon ex. 21 s o. T he contr acta l s o s t at ed thatTr i conex had s ol e r es pons i bi l i ty f ort es t i ng. T hu s, no p ro v isio n o f th e c o n tra c t w a s w a iv e d , an d th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. V. W HETH ER GR EEN W OO D CA N RECO VER O N I TS NE GLI GENC E T HEORY. ¶33. T he tr i al j udge di d not rul e on thi s i s s ue beca us e hi s hol di ng w as bas ed upon br eac h
o f c o n tra c t. B a se d o n th e u lti m a te d isp o sitio n o f th is c a se , w e n e e d n o t ad d re ss it. 7 VI . W HE T HE R A T T OR NE YS ’ F E E S AR E AL L OW E D B Y T HE CO NTRAC T. ¶ 3 4
. W h e re a c o n tra c tu a l p ro v isio n c o n c e rn in g th e a w a rd o f a tto rn e y s’ f e e s is a t issu e , th is C our tw i l l appl y i t s rul e conc erni ng the i nt erpr et at i on of a ny c ontr act , w hi ch i s t o “enf or ce a contr actw hen i t s t erm s ar e cl earand unambi guous . ” H am ilton v. Hop kins , 834 So. 2d 695, 700 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng I vis on v. I vis on , 7 6 2 S o . 2 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 )); G ul f s ide Casin o P ’s h i

p v. Miss. S tate Po rt

A u th . at G u l

fport , 7 5 7 S o . 2 d 2 5 0 , 25 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ); D el ta Pride Cat

f is h, I nc. v. H om e I ns. Co. , 6 9 7 S o . 2 d 4 0 0 , 4 0 3 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); Century 21 D eep S. P r ops . , L td. v. K eys , 6 5 2 S o . 2 d 7 0 7 , 7 1 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 )). ¶ 3 5
. T ri c o n e x d ir e c ts o u r a tte n ti o n to th e p r o v is io n o f C o n tr a c t 1 0 3 , A r ti c le 1 3 G ., r egar di ng the aw ar d of

att orneys ’ f

ees , w hi ch s t at ed: G
. C O R R E C T I O N O R R E M O V A L O F D E FE C T I V E W O R K : I f r equi r ed b y E n g in e e r, C o n tra c to r sh a ll p ro m p tly , as d ire c te d , e ith e r c o rre c t all

### 22 d efe cti v e W o rk, w h ethe r or n o t f ab ri ca ted, i n stal led o r co m p let ed , o r, i f the W or k has been r ej ect ed by Engi neer , r emove i tf r om the s i t e and re p lac e it w ith n o n d e fe c tiv e W o rk . C o n tra c to r sh a ll b e a r a ll d ire c t, i ndi r ectand cons equent i al cost s of s uch corr ect i on orr emoval (i ncludi ng bu tno tl i m i t ed to f ees and charges of engineers , archi t ect s, att orneys and otherpr of es s i onal s ) m ade ne ces s ary ther eby. T r i co ne x f

urthe ra r gu e s tha tthe c on tr a c ta l l owed a t t orne ys ’ f e e s on l y f

orthe r e mova l or
corr ect i on of defect i ve “W ork, ” w hich w as defi ned by the co ntr actas: 1. W or k s hal l i ncl ude furni s hi ng al l E qui pm entand M at er i al s , des i gn, s upervi s i on, l abor , t ool s , a nd f i el d s ervi ces r equi r ed f

orthe f ol l ow i ng: a . A c o n tr o l s y s t e m u p g r a d e f o rth e Ge n e r a l El e c tr i c F r a me 5 C T as s peci f

i ed her ei n and as i ndi cat ed on the dr aw i ngs . W or k t o i ncl ude i ns t al l at i on of al l E qui pm ent and M at eri al s. b. A cont r ol s ys t em forthe H R SG and as s oci at ed equ i pmen t . The HR SG c on tr ol s ys t e m ca bi ne twi l l be i ns t al l ed and w i r ed by C ontr act106. T r i conex a r gues i n i t s br i ef thatno att orneys ’ f

ees w er e i ncurr ed by G r eenw ood, as T r i conex
v o l u n t a r i l y f

i x e d th e s p e e d p r o b l e m: T he onl y act i on nece s sary t o corr ectthe al l eged de f ect i ve “W or k” i n the i ns t antcas e, w as s endi ng a f i el d s ervi ces r epr es ent at i ves ( s i c) t o G r eenw ood t o ver i f y the val ue f

orthe s cal i ng f

act orr equi r ed t o cal cul at e turbi ne s peed f r om a s ensorp l aced on the auxi l i ary pum p, havi ng thatf i el d s ervi ces re p re se n tativ e c o rre c t th e v a lu e in th e p ro g ra m , a n d d o w n lo a d th e c h a n g e s to the T ri con ex co m pu t er atG reenw oo d to i m plem ent the ch ang e. T ho se preci se act i ons w er e i n f

actt aken i n G r eenw ood on February 14, 1996, by J ohn Dr i s k i l l , a f

i e l d s e r v i c e s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f o rTr i c o n e x . ( E x . Vo l
. 5 , E x . 8 1 )
. No att o rne y ’s fees w ere incu rred to en co u rag e o r co m p el th e su b co n tr ac tor, T r i conex, t o corr ectthe al l eged de f ect i ve w or k; and ther ef or e, no aw ar d of a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s is a u th o riz e d u n d e r C o n tra c t 1 0 3 o n th e e v e n ts th a t o c c u rre d in the i ns t antcas e. F ro m th e re c o rd b e fo re u s, w e fin d th a t t h e trial ju d g e p ro p e rly a w a rd e d a tto rn e y s’ f e e s to G reenw oo d i n acc or dance w i th the contr act . N otw i ths t andi ng T r i conex’ s as s ert i ons , t he

### 23

“W or k” i ncl uded the i ns t al l at i on of the s ys t em, w hetherornotcompl et ed. A ccor di ng t o the contr act , T r i conex w as r es pons i bl e f orr epl aci ng any def

ect i ve “W or k” w i th nondef ect i ve “W or k. ” G r eenw ood had t o f i l e s ui tbe caus e T r i conex r ef us ed t o pa y f

orthe damage t o t he turbi ne. T hus , f

i ndi ng no abus e of

di s cr et i on, and f

ort he r eas ons st at ed, w e f i nd thi s i s s ue to b e w ith o u t m e rit. VI I . W HE T HE R T HE RE W AS S UF F I CI E NT P RO OF AS T O T HE REASONABLENES S OF ATTOR NEYS’ FEE S ¶36. O n J ul y 14, 2005, J udge H i nes ent er ed an O r deron the i s s ue of att orneys ’ f

ees , w hi ch
s t at ed i n i t s ent i r ety: T H IS C A U S E cam e b efo re th e C o u rton th e issue of att o rne y fees. T h e C o u rt has revi ew ed the att orney f ees s oughtand f

i nds thatthey meetthe re a so n a b len e ss re q u ire m e n t o f th e ru les . T h e C o u rt f u rth e r fin d s th a t d u e to the compl exi ty of

the s ubj ectm att erand t he l engthy dur at i on of the l i t i gat i on that the e m p loy m en t of tw o (2) a tt o rne y s w as justi fi ed
. A cc o rdin g ly the C o u rt f i nds thatthe amountof att orney f

ees t o be aw ar ded i n thi s caus e s hal l be $240, 980. 40. T r i conex a r gues thatJ udge H i nes f ai l ed t o m ake s ubs t ant i ve f i ndi ngs of

f acti n acc or dance
w i th the McK

ee f act or s es t abl i s hed by thi s C our ti n McK ee v. McK

ee , 418 So
. 2d 76 4 (M i ss 1982)
. I ns t ead, T ri conex ar gues , J udge H i nes s i m pl y gave a n i m perm i s s i bl e “bl anket
en d o rsem en t” of G ree n w o o d ’s att o rne y s’ claim ed fee s an d ex p en se s, w h ich th is C o u rt f orbade i n B ell

S ou th v. B oa rd of Su

pervisors , 912 So. 2d 436, 447 ( M i s s . 2005)
. T he McK ee f act or s ar e adopt ed f

r om R ule 1. 5(a) of

the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of Pr of es s i onal C on du ct , w hich st at es: A l aw yer ' s f

ee s hal l be r eas onabl e. The f act or s t o be cons i der ed i n det erm i ni ng the r eas onabl enes s of

a f ee i ncl ude the f

ol l ow i ng : ( 1) the t i m e and l abor

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 9-1- 41 was approved by the Le gis lature o n March13, 1990, 8 

### whil e this Court

dec ide d McKee onJuly28 , 19 82
. 24 re q u ire d , the n o v e lty a n d d iffic u lty o f th e q u e s tio n s in v o lv e d , an d th e sk ill r equi s i t e t o per f

or m the l egal s ervi ces prope r l y; (2) t he l i kel i hood, i f appar ent t o the cl i ent, thatthe ac cept ance of the part i cul arempl oym entw i l l pr ecl ude otherempl oym entby the l aw yer ; ( 3) the f ee c us t om ar i l y char ged i n the lo c a tio n fo r sim ilar le g a l s e rv ic e s; (4 ) th e a m o u n t in v o lv e d a n d th e re su lts obt ai ned; ( 5) the t i m e l i m i t at i ons i m po sed b y the cl i entorby the c irc u m sta n c e s; (6 ) th e n a tu re a n d le n g th o f th e p ro fe ss io n a l re latio n sh ip w ith the c li en t; (7) the ex p erien ce , rep u tat ion , an d ab il ity o f th e law y er o r l aw y ers p e rfo rm in g th e se rv ice s; a n d (8 ) w h e th e r th e fe e is fix e d o r c o n tin g e n t. M is s . R . P ro f’ l C o n d u c t 1 .5 (a ). ¶3 7
. T ric o n e x fu rth e r a rg u e s th a t th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h as h eld tha t an a m o u n t to compensa t e f

orone com pet entat t orney i s t he cr i t er i a upon w hi ch an aw ar d shoul d be made. Evans v. Evans , 9 1 2 S o . 2 d 1 8 4 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶38. G r eenw ood ar gues that i t s ubm i t t ed i t emi zed att orney r ecor ds f or t i m e and expe ns es f orthe t r i al cour tt o consi der
. F ur therm or e, G r eenw ood ci t es M i s s . C ode A nn. § 9- 1- 41 and
ar gues thatthe tr i al j udge ma kes the det erm i nat i on of r eas onabl enes s f

r om exper i ence and ob servati on . M i ss. C od e A nn . § 9 -1- 41 (R ev. 20 02 ) s t at es: In any a ct i on i n w hich a cou rti s aut ho ri zed to aw ard r easona ble att orneys’ f ees , the courts hal l notr equi r e the party s eeki ng s uch f ees t o puton pr oof

as t o the r eas onabl enes s of the amount s ought , buts hal l m ake the aw ar d bas ed on the i nf or m at i on al r eady be f

or e i tand the court ’ s ow n opini on base d on exper i ence and observat i on; provi ded how ever , a par ty m ay, i n i t s di s cr et i on, pl ace bef or e the courtotherevi dence as t o the r eas onabl enes s of the amount of the aw ar d, and t he cour tm ay cons i ders uch evi dence i n m aki ng the aw ar d. I d. G re e n w o o d fu rth e r a rg u e s th a t McK ee pr edat es t he pas s age of M i s s . C ode A nn. § 9- 1- 41,
an d thu s McK

ee i s no l ongerappl i cabl e. G r eenw ood al s o ar gues thatthe McK ee fact ors, 8

### 25

sin c e th e y a re a d o p ted fro m M iss . R . P ro f’l C o n d u c t 1 .5 (a ), sh o u ld b e a p p lica b le o n ly to d e ter m in e re a so n a b len e ss in a d isp u te b e tw e e n a n a tto rn e y a n d a c lien t. H o w e v e r, w e n o te thati n Bel

l Sout h (a “ b u sine ss d ispu te”), ev en tho u g h this C o u rtrev erse d the tri al co u rt ’s f i ndi ngs on att orneys f

ees , w e di s cus s ed and appl i ed McK ee and the M i s s . R
. Pr of’ l C onduct 1 .5 (a ) f a c to rs . See B e llS o u th , 912 So. 2d at445- 48. ¶39. T hi s Courts t at ed i n Mab us v. Mab us , 9 1 0 S o . 2 d 4 8 6 , 4 8 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ) that, w h ere
a tr ia l ju d g e re lie s “ o n s u b s ta n tia l c re d ib le e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd re g a rd in g a tto rn e y ’s fe e s ,” the tri al j u d g e h as n o t ab u sed h is discre ti o n . Itis c lear fro m the lan g u ag e o f th e tri al j u d g e’s
or derthatt he j udge di d i n f actappl y the McK

ee fa c to rs e v e n th o u g h h e d id n o t d e tail h is
re a so n in g . T h u s, w e fin d th a t Ju d g e H in e s d id n o t ab u se h is d isc re tio n , an d w e d e e m it
un necessary t o en t er i nto a di scussi on of w hetherS ect i on 9-1-41 sup ercedes McK ee . ¶40
. F urther, this C ou rtfi nd s Evans w h o lly irre lev a n t e v e n th o u g h , a s th is C o u rt sta ted in Mab us , “t he gener al rul e i s thatappr opr i at e att orney f ees s houl d be aw ar ded i n the amount t o s ecur e one c om pet entatt orney. ” Mab us , 9 1 0 S o . 2 d a t 4 9 0
. Evans and Mab us a re c lea rly di s t i ngui s habl e f

r om thi s cas e as thos e ca s es conce rned di vor ce, w her e the tr i al j udge may take into a cc o u n t th e p arti es’ a b il ity to p ay . T h is c a se in v o lves a b u sine ss d ispu te, w h ere abi l i ty t o pay i s nota cons i der at i on. T he tr i al j udge di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on i n aw ar di ng f ees and expe ns es f

ort w o att orneys i n thi s cas e, w hi ch cont ai ns com pl ex l egal i s s ues and has b e e n o n g o in g fo r m o re th a n a d e c a d e . A c c o rd in g ly , w e fin d th a t th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit.

### Hurric aneCam il lestruc k theMis si ss ippiGulf Co ast o n Sunday night , Augus t 17, 9 

### 19 69
. 26 V I I I . W HETHER GREE N W OOD M E T THE L E GAL P RE RE QU I S I T E S T O B E E NT I T L E D T O A N A W AR D O F PREJ UDG M ENT I NTERES T. ¶41. T hi s Courtr e c e nt l y d i s cus s ed the i s s ue of pr ej udgm enti nt er es ti n Mi cr otek Med. , I nc.
v. 3M Co. , 942 So. 2d 122, 132 ( M i s s . 2006) , i n w hi ch w e s t at ed that“[ t ] he t ri al judge no doubthas di s cr et i on t o aw ar d pre j udgm enti nt er es ti f

( 1) the amountof

damages i s f

i xed and ( 2) l i abi l i ty i s undi s put ed. ” “Pr ej udgm enti nt er es thas been de ni ed w her e ther e i s a bona f i de d is p u te a s to th e a m o u n t o f d a m a g e s a s w e ll a s th e re s p o n s ib ility fo r t h e lia b ility th e re fo r.” I d. ( quot i ng G r ace v. L itit zMut . I ns. Co. , 257 So. 2d 217, 225 ( M i s s . 1972) )
. “For p re ju d g m e n t in ter e st to b e a w a rd e d , the p a rty m u st m a k e a p ro p e r d e m a n d fo r th e in ter e st in the pl eadi ngs , i ncl udi ng the dat e thati tw as al l egedl y due. ” I d. ; see al so S im p so n v. S ta te Far m Fir e & Cas . Co. , 5 6 4 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 4 , 1 3 8 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). ¶42. U pon r ef

l ect i on, i ti s r eadi l y a ppar entt o us thati n t oday’ s c as e, w e m us tc l ar i f y our hol di ng i n Mi cr otek , w hi c h r e l i e d o n thi s Cour t ’ s de c i s i on i n G r ace . A stud y o f G r ace
r evea l s thatthe pr i m ary i s s ue w as w hetheran i ns ur erw as r es pons i bl e t o i t s i ns ur eds under th e a p p lica b le in su ra n c e p o licy , w h ich p ro v id e d c o v e ra g e fo r an o ffic e b u ild in g d a m a g e d in the w ake of

H urr i cane Cam i l l e. I n a ddr es s i ng the pr ej udgm enti nt er es ti s s ue i n G r ace , this 9 C o u rt s u c c in c tly d is p o s e d o f t h is is s u e b y s ta tin g , in tera lia , tha t th e p lain tiffs/a p p e llan ts
w er e notent i t l ed t o i nt er es t“bec aus e i n thi s i ns t ance ther e i s a bona f i de di s put e as t o t he

### Per haps a be tt er

way to statethis princ ipl e is that prej udgme nt int er es t may not be 10 

### awarde d unle ss theam ount dueis li quidate d when the cl ai m is ori gina lly ma de or wher e the deni alof a

cl ai m wa s f

ri volous or in bad f

ai th. 27 amount of damages as w el l as the r es pons i bi l i ty fort he l i abi l i ty ther ef or . ” G r ace , 257 So. 2d at225. 10 ¶ 4 3
. W e s e i z e d u p o n th i s l a n g u a g e f r o m G r ace i n Sim

ps on v. State Far m Fir e & Cas . Co. , 564 So. 2d 1 374, 1380 ( M i s s . 1990) , and aga i n i n T hom ps on Machiner

y Com m er ce v. W al lace , 687 So. 2d 149, 152 ( M i s s . 1997)
. T he appr opr i at e cr i t er i a f ordet erm i ni ng w hen
an aw ard of

pr ej udgm enti nt er es ti s pr operi s f ound i n ourr ece ntopi ni on i n Stocks til l v. G a m m ill , 943 So. 2d 35, 50 ( M i s s . 2006) , w her e w e s t at ed: It is w e ll se ttl e d th a t in M iss iss ip p i a [tria l ju d g e ] i s a ff o rd e d d isc re tio n in deci di ng w hethert o a w ar d pr ej udgm enti nt er es t . “A n aw ar d of pr ej udgm ent i n t e r e s tr e s t s i n th e d i s c r e t i o n o f th e a wa r d i n g j u d g e . Un d e rM i s s i s s i p p i l a w, p re ju d g m e n t in te re s t m a y b e a llo w e d in c a se s w h e re th e a m o u n t d u e is liq u id a ted w h e n th e cla im is or ig in a lly m a d e o r w h e re the d e n ial o f a c laim is f r i vol ous ori n bad f

ai th. N o aw ar d of

pr ej udgm enti nt er es tm ay r at i onal l y be m ade w her e the pr i nci pal amount has notbe en f i xed pr i ort o j udgm ent . ” Coho Res . v. Mc Car thy , 829 So. 2d 1, 1 9-20 (M i s s . 2002) ( quot i ng W ar w i ck v. Matheney , 6 0 3 S o . 2 d 3 3 0 , 3 4 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 )). See a l so Tupelo R edev. Agenc y v. Abernat

hy , 9 1 3 S o . 2 d 2 7 8 , 2 8 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). I d. at50. T hus , i n s um , w e t oday cl ar i f y thi s i s s ue as di s cus s ed i n G r ace and i t s pr ogeny, i ncl udi ng Mi cr otek , by s t at i ng thatw hen cons i der i ng the i s s ue of pr ej udgm enti nt er es t , the tri al cou rt , and the app el l at e co urtu po n revi ew , sho uld rem em ber that pr ej ud gm ent i nter est
m a y b e a llo w e d in th o se c a se s w h e re th e a m o u n t d u e is liq u id a ted w h e n th e c laim is
or i gi nal l y m ade orw her e the deni al of a cl ai m i s f

r i vol ous ori n bad f

ai th.

### 28

¶44. T he mot i on f

orr ehea r i ng l i kew i s e as s ert s err orby thi s C our ti n aw ar di ng pr ej udgm ent i nt er es tbeca us e the compl ai ntdoes notcont ai n a s peci f i ed dat e on w hi ch pr ej udgm ent in ter e st a lleg e d ly b e c a m e d u e . T o a d d re ss this issu e w e fe e l co m p e lled b rie fly to re v iew th is Co u r t ’ s j u d i c i a l e n a c t me n to f th e M i s s i s s i p p i Ru l e s o f Ci v i l P r o c e d u r e , wh i c h b e c a me appl i cabl e t o al l ci vi l act i ons f i l ed on oraf

t erJ anuary 1, 1982. A s of the ef f ect i ve dat e of

our
c iv il p ro c e d u re ru le s , M is s is s ip p i b e c a m e a “ n o tic e p le a d in g s ” s ta te . See M is s . R . C iv . P . 8 and C om m ent

ther eunder
. N o doubt , pr i ort o the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, t echni ca l p l e a di ng r e qu i r e ment s e xi s t e d. Thi s Court ’ s c a s e s p r i ort o the e na c t mento f our ci vi l pr ocedur e rul es re qui r ed a pl ai nt i f f t o s peci f i cal l y demand pr ej udgm enti nt er es ti n t he
c o m p la in t a n d to a ls o s p e c if y th e d a te fr o m w h ic h th e p re ju d g m e n t in te re s t w a s d u e . See,
e .g ., Md. Cas . Co. v. L egg , 2 4 7 S o . 2 d 8 1 2 , 8 1 4 (M iss. 1 9 7 1 ). ¶45
. M i ss. R
. C i v. P
. 8(a) provides: ( a) C l ai m s f

orR el i ef
. A pl eadi ng w hi ch s et s f or th a c l ai m f

orr el i ef , w hether a n o rig in a l cla im , co u n ter -c laim , cro ss -c laim , o r th ird -p a rty c laim , sh a ll c o n tain ( 1) a s hor tand pl ai n s t at ementof the cl ai m s how i ng thatthe pl eade ri s ent i t l ed to re lie f, a n d , ( 2) a dem and forj udgm entf orthe r el i ef

t o w hi ch he de ems hi m s el f ent i t l ed. R el i ef i n the al t ernat i ve orof

s ever al di f

f er enttypes m ay be de m anded. See a l so M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 8( e)
. I n appl yi ng thi s rul e, w e s t at ed i n Church v. Mas s ey , 697 So. 2d 407, 412 ( M i s s . 1997) that“t he com m entt o t hatrul e s t at es that‘ [ t ] he purpos e of R ul e 8 is to g iv e n o tice , n o t t o sta te fa c ts a n d n a rro w the issu e s a s w a s th e p u rp o se o f p lea d in g s in pr i orM i s s i s s i ppi pr act i ce. ’ ” I d. H ow ever , a s r ece nt l y a s ourde ci s i on i n P re fe rr e d R isk Mu t. I ns. Co. v. Johnson , 730 So. 2d 574, 578 ( M i s s . 1998) , thi s C our ts t at ed:

### 29

A p a rt y m u s t m a k e a p ro p e r d e m a n d fo r t h e in te re s t in th e p le a d in g s , i ncl udi ng the dat e thati tw as al l egedl y due . [ W

ir t zv. Sw it z er ] , 586 So. 2d [ 775] at785 [(M iss . 1 9 9 1 )]; T

hom ps on Mach. Com m erce Corp. v. W al lace , 687 So. 2d 1 4 9 , 1 5 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); Sim ps on , 5 6 4 S o . 2 d a t 1 3 8 0
. I d . at578
. ( E m ph asi s added ). A ccordi ng l y, i nsofaras P r ef er r ed R is k c a n b e in terp re ted to sta n d fo r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t a p lea d e r’s fa ilu re to a lleg e in th e c o m p lain t th e sp e c ific d a te
o n w h ic h p re

ju d g m e n t in te re s t is d u e is f a ta l to a c la im fo r p re

ju d g m e n t in te re s t, P r ef er r ed R isk( and any othercas e s o hol di ng) i s overrul ed t o thi s l i m i t ed ext ent. W e w i sh t o m ake cl eart oday thatw hi l e M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 8 does r equi r e t hat a party as s erta demand f or p rejud g m en t i n terest in th e a p p rop ri ate p lead ing ; on the o ther h an d , R u le 8 d o es n o t r eq u ir e t hata party s e e ki ng pr e j ud gmen ti nt e r e s tmus tpl e a d the s pe c i f i c da t e on w hi c h the pr ej udgm enti nt er es tal l egedl y i s due. ¶46. W i th al l thi s havi ng been s ai d, w e now r eturn t o t oday’ s cas e. Fi r s t , T r i conex a r gues that G ree n w o o d ’s da m ag es c lai m w as n o t f o r a liq u id ated am o u n t, b ec au se th e tri al co u rt f ound thatG r eenw ood f

ai l ed t o m i t i gat e i t s damages ; thatG E w as notent i t l ed t o some of t he
c h a rg e s fo r a d d iti o n a l re p a ir w o rk ; an d th a t G re e n w o o d c o u ld n o t re c o v e r fo r th e c o sts to pur chas e addi t i onal capa ci ty orl os tr evenue due t o r educe d capa ci ty. H ow ever , G r eenw ood
ar gues thatt he amountobvi ous l y beca m e l i qui dat ed w hen the money w as pai d by G r eenw ood, and the tr i al cour tused thos e dat es i n i t s cal cul at i ons . G r eenw ood f ur therar gues thatthi s C our tr equi r es onl y thatam ount s m us tbe l i qui dat ed “pr i ort o j udgm ent . ” P r ef er r ed R is k Mut

. I ns. Co. v. Johnson , 7 3 0 S o . 2 d 5 7 4 , 5 7 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ).

### 30

¶4 7. T he amount s w er e l i qui dat ed w hen pai d and ce r t ai nl y pr i ort o j udgm ent , as G r eenw ood rec ei ved bi l l s f orthe amount s r equi r ed t o r epai rthe damage t o the turbi ne. A c c o rd in g ly , th e re c a n b e n o b o n a fid e d isp u te a s to th e a m o u n t o f d a m a g e s, a s th e se b ill s came due pr i ort o t he j udgm entent er ed by Judge H i nes . T hus , t he damages w er e f i xed w hen G reenw oo d recei ved the b i l l s. ¶ 4 8
. N e x t, T ric o n e x a rg u e s th a t G re e n w o o d sim p ly d e m a n d e d p re ju d g m e n t in ter e st in its
c o mp l a i n twi th o u ts t a t i n g a n a mo u n to rth e d a t e f r o m w h i c h i twa s a l l e g e d l y d u e . As we have cl ar i f

i ed the l aw on thi s i s s ue supra , G r eenw ood w as re qui r ed onl y t o m ake a demand f orpr ej udgm enti nt er es t , and G r eenw ood’ s f ai l ur e t o s t at e a s peci fi c d at e i n i t s compl ai nt d o e s n o t re liev e T ric o n e x fro m b e in g re sp o n sib le f o r p re ju d g m e n t in ter e st. ¶49. T r i conex di r ect s thi s C our tt o i t s deci s i on i n T heobald v. N

os s er , 784 So. 2d 142, 145 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ), an d a rg u e s th a t T heobald sta n d s fo r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t a p lain tiff m u st s tate a sp ec if ic da te from w h ich p rejud g m en t i n terest i s a ll eg ed ly d u e in the p lead ing s. H o w ev er, thi s C our ts t at ed i n T

h e o b a ld : T he N osser s ass ertthat the T h eob al ds did not r equ estprej ud gm ent i nter est u n til th e h e a rin g b e fo re th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt a fte r th is C o u rt h a d iss u e d its opi ni on. T hatas s ert i on i s s up po rt ed by t he cha ncery court , w hi ch f ound that the Theobal ds di d notm ake a pr operdemand f orpr ej udgm enti nt er es t , and by t he T heobal ds ' ow n compl ai nt , w hi ch s peci f i cal l y as ked f

or"l egal i nt er est af t er dat e of

j udgm ent . " I n l i gh tof al l thes e f

act or s , w e conc l ude thatthe chanc ery c our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s cr et i on i n de nyi ng the T heo bal ds p re ju d g m e n t in ter e st. I d. ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. T hu s, thi s C our ts peci f i cal l y emphasi zed thatthe Theobal ds demanded i nt er es taf

t erthe date of

j udgm ent , w hi ch i s di s t i ngui s habl e f r om thi s cas e.

### 31

G re e n w o o d c lea rly a sk e d fo r p re ju d g m e n t in ter e st in its c o m p lain t. G re e n w o o d ’s f a ilu re to
s t at e a s peci f

i c dat e i n i t s compl ai ntdoes notr el i eve Tr i conex f r om bei ng r es pons i bl e f or p re ju d g m e n t in ter e st. ¶50. Fi nal l y, Tr i conex ar gues thatprej ud gm ent i nter esti s not aut ho ri zed b y st atut e. T ri co n ex arg u es th at M iss. C o d e A n n . § 7 5 -17 -1(1 ) ( R ev . 20 0 0 ) al low s tr ial jud g es to aw ard pr ej udgm enti nt er es tonl y w her e expr es s l y pr ovi ded i n the contr act . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 75- 17 -1( 1) st at es: T he l egal r at e of

i nt er es ton al l n otes , account s and contr act s s hal l be ei ght per cent( 8% ) perannum, cal cul at ed accor di ng t o the ac tuar i al m ethod, but contr act s m ay be made, i n w r i t i ng, f orpaym ent of

a f i nance char ge as o th e r wi s e p r o v i d e d b y th i s s e c t i o n o ra s o th e rwi s e a u th o r i z e d b y l a w. I d. H ow ever , G ree nw ood ar gues thatM i s s . C ode A nn. § 75- 17- 7 ( R ev. 2000) i s t he app l i cable s t atute and all ow s tri al j ud ges t he d i scr et i on t o aw ard prej ud gm ent i nter est . M i ss. C od e A nn . § 7 5-17-7 st at es: A l l j udgm ent s orde cr ees f ounded on a ny s al e orc ontr acts hal l beari nt er es tat the s ame r at e as the contr actevi denci ng the de bt on w hi ch the j udgm entor decr ee w as r ender ed. A l l otherj udgm ent s ordecr ees s hal l beari nt er es tata per annum ra t e s etby the j udge hear i ng the compl ai ntf r om a dat e det erm i ned by su c h ju d g e to b e fa ir b u t in n o e v e n t p rio r to th e filing o f th e c o m p lain t. I d. W e f i nd thatM i s s . C ode A nn. § 75- 17- 7 i s the appl i cabl e s t atut e. T he tr i al j udge r el i ed on M i s s . C ode A nn. § 75- 17- 7 i n hi s Fi ndi ng of Fact s and C oncl us i ons of L aw . T hus , t he tri al j ud ge acted w el l w i thin hi s aut ho ri ty b y aw ardi ng prej ud gm ent i nter est . F or these
r eas ons , and f

i ndi ng no abus e of

di s cr et i on on the par tof the tr i al j udge, w e f

i nd thi s i s s ue to b e w ith o u t m e ri t.

### 32 CO NC L US I ON ¶5 1. For the r e a s on s d i s c us s e d, we af f i r m t he Lef

l or e C ount y C i r cui tC our t ’ s f i nal j udgm entent ered i n f avorof G r eenw ood U t i l i t i es C om m i s s i on and aga i ns tU pchur ch P lu m b in g , In c ., a n d T ric o n e x S y ste m s, In c ., in th e to tal a m o u n t o f $ 2 ,6 2 2 ,4 5 1 .9 6 , p lu s p o stju d g m e n t in ter e st. ¶52. AF F I RM ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND D I AZ , P . J J . , EA S LE Y, DI CKI NS ON AND R A N D O L P H , JJ . , C O N C U R . G R A V E S , J. , C O N C U R S IN P A R T A N D D ISS E N T S IN P AR T W I T HOU T S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON. L AMAR , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .