Court Opinion

ID: 9728770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:16:02.729339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:51.874097
License: Public Domain

McGIVERIN, Justice
(dissenting).
Being unable to agree with the result reached by the majority, I respectfully dissent.
The written instrument between the parties which the majority concedes is controlling states in part:
“The applicant will at any time subsequent to placing the cable, pipe line or tile line, and at his own expense, relay, reconstruct or encase his lines as may become necessary to conform to new grades, alignment or widening right-of-way, resulting from maintenance or construction operations by the Highway Department irrespective of whether or not additional right-of-way is acquired in connection with such highway improvement. The applicant agrees to do this promptly on order by the Sioux County Highway Department, and without cost to the County. If the applicant is unable to comply promptly, the Highway Department may cause the work to be done, and the applicant will pay the cost thereof upon receipt of statement. (Emphasis supplied.)
I believe the emphasized language in the above agreement controls the result and places liability on the appellee, Rural Water System No. 1, to pay for the re-location of the pipeline in question.
I would hold the term “pipeline” refers to pipeline on either public or private property and therefore no ambiguity exists in the written agreement of the parties.
I would reverse the trial court ruling.