Northeastern Rural Electric Membership Corporation v. Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., 56 N.E.3d 38

Wabash Valley Power Association (Wabash) is a generation/transmission cooperative that supplied wholesale power to member cooperatives including Northeastern Rural Electric Membership Corporation (Northeastern) under a long-term 1977 Wholesale Power Supply Contract. Rates were subject to Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) approval under the Contract.
Because of federal Rural Utilities Service debt, Wabash was initially outside FERC jurisdiction; after repaying most RUS debt, Wabash sought and obtained IURC approval and then filed with FERC in 2004 to become subject to FERC rate regulation effective July 1, 2004.
Northeastern did not challenge the IURC or FERC filings at the time. The parties executed a Sixth Supplemental Agreement in 2005 setting the Contract to terminate June 30, 2015.
Northeastern alleges Wabash’s switch to FERC regulation (and later rate increases beginning in 2008) constituted a material breach that deprived Northeastern of IURC oversight and caused higher rates; Northeastern sued for declaratory relief in 2012.
Wabash moved for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds (four-year UCC limitations rule). The trial court held Northeastern’s claim accrued no later than July 1, 2004, and denied equitable tolling/estoppel, granting summary judgment to Wabash. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did Northeastern's breach-of-contract claim accrue?	Accrual occurred in 2008 when Wabash substantially raised margins and caused demonstrated harm.	Accrual occurred July 1, 2004, when Wabash switched regulatory authority to FERC, breaching the Contract's IURC-rate requirement.	Claim accrued in 2004; limitations began then.
Whether equitable estoppel or fraudulent concealment tolled limitations	Wabash promised initial FERC rates would match IURC rates and would "follow" prior margin treatment; Wabash intentionally delayed material changes until after limitations expired.	Northeastern knew of the regulatory change, had board representation, and Wabash gave no promise that margins would never change; no concealment or misleading conduct.	No evidence Wabash knowingly misled or concealed; doctrines do not apply.
Whether judicial estoppel bars Northeastern’s later position	(Northeastern) Not applicable to defeat accrual argument.	(Wabash) Northeastern previously argued breach was 2004; judicial estoppel should prevent inconsistent timing arguments.	Court noted inconsistent positions but resolved accrual as 2004 regardless of estoppel.

Meisenhelder v. Zipp Exp., Inc., 788 N.E.2d 924 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (breach accrual rule for contract claims)
Rice v. Strunk, 670 N.E.2d 1280 (Ind. 1996) (standards for appellate review of summary judgment with findings)
Bradshaw v. Chandler, 916 N.E.2d 163 (Ind. 2009) (summary-judgment review principles)
Arkansas Elec. Coop. Corp. v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 461 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1983) (state regulation of G&T cooperatives when FERC has not exercised jurisdiction)
Hall v. Dallman Contractors, LLC, 994 N.E.2d 1220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (doctrine and limits of judicial estoppel)