Opinion ID: 1709421
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether attorneys' fees are allowed by the contract.

Text: ¶ 34. Where a contractual provision concerning the award of attorneys' fees is at issue, this Court will apply its rule concerning the interpretation of any contract, which is to enforce a contract when its terms are clear and unambiguous. Hamilton v. Hopkins, 834 So.2d 695, 700 (Miss.2003) (citing Ivison v. Ivison, 762 So.2d 329, 334 (Miss.2000); Gulfside Casino P'ship v. Miss. State Port Auth. at Gulfport, 757 So.2d 250, 256 (Miss.2000); Delta Pride Catfish, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 697 So.2d 400, 403 (Miss. 1997); Century 21 Deep S. Props., Ltd. v. Keys, 652 So.2d 707, 717 (Miss.1995)). ¶ 35. Triconex directs our attention to the provision of Contract 103, Article 13 G., regarding the award of attorneys' fees, which stated: G. CORRECTION OR REMOVAL OF DEFECTIVE WORK: If required by Engineer, Contractor shall promptly, as directed, either correct all defective Work, whether or not fabricated, installed or completed, or, if the Work has been rejected by Engineer, remove it from the site and replace it with nondefective Work. Contractor shall bear all direct, indirect and consequential costs of such correction or removal (including but not limited to fees and charges of engineers, architects, attorneys and other professionals) made necessary thereby. Triconex further argues that the contract allowed attorneys' fees only for the removal or correction of defective Work, which was defined by the contract as: 1. Work shall include furnishing all Equipment and Materials, design, supervision, labor, tools, and field services required for the following: a. A control system upgrade for the General Electric Frame 5 CT as specified herein and as indicated on the drawings. Work to include installation of all Equipment and Materials. b. A control system for the HRSG and associated equipment. The HRSG control system cabinet will be installed and wired by Contract 106. Triconex argues in its brief that no attorneys' fees were incurred by Greenwood, as Triconex voluntarily fixed the speed problem: The only action necessary to correct the alleged defective Work in the instant case, was sending a field services representatives (sic) to Greenwood to verify the value for the scaling factor required to calculate turbine speed from a sensor placed on the auxiliary pump, having that field services representative correct the value in the program, and download the changes to the Triconex computer at Greenwood to implement the change. Those precise actions were in fact taken in Greenwood on February 14, 1996, by John Driskill, a field services representative for Triconex. (Ex. Vol. 5, Ex. 81). No attorney's fees were incurred to encourage or compel the subcontractor, Triconex, to correct the alleged defective work; and therefore, no award of attorney's fees is authorized under Contract 103 on the events that occurred in the instant case. From the record before us, we find that the trial judge properly awarded attorneys' fees to Greenwood in accordance with the contract. Notwithstanding Triconex's assertions, the Work included the installation of the system, whether or not completed. According to the contract, Triconex was responsible for replacing any defective Work with nondefective Work. Greenwood had to file suit because Triconex refused to pay for the damage to the turbine. Thus, finding no abuse of discretion, and for the reasons stated, we find this issue to be without merit.