Opinion ID: 865744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: ¶19. We find the provision in question is unambiguous, and the plain meaning of the words used in the FAC support the Commission’s interpretation of the contract. However, the last sentence of the FAC, locking in reimbursements to Hill Brothers based on the price of petroleum as of the expiration of contract time, contravenes the requirements of Section 31- 7-13(i) and thus must be struck from the agreement. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ¶20. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 9 WALLER, C.J., CARLSON, P.J., KITCHENS, CHANDLER AND PIERCE, JJ., CONCUR. RANDOLPH, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. GRAVES, P.J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION, JOINED BY LAMAR, J.