Opinion ID: 1058300
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Amended Bill of Complaint

Text: The utilities assert that the circuit court erred in refusing to allow the utilities to file an amended bill of complaint following the circuit court's ruling on Norfolk Southern's demurrer. The utilities argue that in the proposed amended bill of complaint they pled additional facts and theories regarding new matters not contained in the original Bill of Complaint. Specifically, the utilities argued that they alleged new facts to establish estoppel, waiver, and other theories in support of their claims and that none of these facts or theories were raised in the original bill of complaint. According to the utilities, the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the utilities leave to amend because the utilities were entitled to pursue them as independent claims to insure that their rights were fully and finally declared, rather than be relegated to the status of cross-bill defendants. Concluding, the utilities aver that absent any prejudice to Norfolk Southern, and absent any finding that the new theories were legally deficient, the circuit court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend. After reviewing the proposed amended bill of complaint, the circuit court concluded that it would accomplish nothing more than provide opportunity for reargument of questions already decided. The circuit court also concluded that the proposed amendment was not an appropriate use of the declaratory judgment mechanism because it sought determination of disputed issues rather than adjudication of the parties' rights. The new factual allegations and legal theories in the proposed amended bill of complaint were essentially identical to those contained in the amended answer to the cross-claim. Many of the new factual allegations related to Norfolk Southern's actions which the utilities asserted modified the terms of the agreement, an issue already decided as noted by the circuit court. Claims of estoppel, modification, novation, and fraud in the inducement contained in the proposed amended complaint are, as noted by the circuit court, not determinations of rights, and thus are not appropriate for a declaratory judgment proceeding. Accordingly, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the utilities' motion to file an amended bill of complaint.