Opinion ID: 1060029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alternative Basis of Recovery

Text: Westmoreland's amended motion for judgment contained an alternative claim of breach of contract for Virginia Power's withholding of Capacity Payments for days that Westmoreland designated as Forced Outage Days pursuant to § 1.20(a) of the Contract. The trial court's award of summary judgment in favor of Virginia Power encompassed this alternative claim. Under § 1.20, a Forced Outage Day occurs when (a) designated by [Westmoreland] as a Forced Outage Day, or (b) determined pursuant to Section 10.15(d). Westmoreland argues that [e]ven if § 10.15(d) could be read as depriving [it] of [capacity] payments attributable to days that are classified as Forced Outage Days by [the section's] own operation, its impact [should] be limited to such days. Hence, Westmoreland concludes, it was entitled, at a minimum, to a judgment for the amount attributable to the days covered by § 1.20(a). Virginia Power says the trial court did not err in denying Westmoreland a partial recovery for designated days. The trial court stated no reason for the inclusion of Westmoreland's alternative basis for relief in its award of summary judgment. As Westmoreland suggests in a footnote to its brief, the trial court's disposition of this phase of the case may have been inextricably entwined in the court's conclusion that § 10.15(d) unambiguously permits Virginia Power not to make dependable capacity payments on days for which [Westmoreland] seeks payment, which necessarily included Forced Outage Days designated by Westmoreland pursuant to § 1.20(a). Since we hold supra that the Contract is ambiguous, we think the trial court on remand, if Westmoreland is unsuccessful on its principal claim for breach of contract, should have the opportunity to consider further the question whether Virginia Power is entitled to withhold Capacity Payments for Forced Outage Days designated by Westmoreland pursuant to § 1.20(a).