126 So. 3d 1095
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- FGT and DOT are parties to 1958 and 1967 easements governing location, relocation, and use of a natural gas pipeline within the Turnpike right‑of‑way.
- The 1987 amendment clarified that relocations at DOT’s expense could be avoided or minimized when alternative methods were substantially equal in cost and feasibility, with DOT controlling what changes were made.
- In 1992, DOT and FGT executed a Reimbursable Agreement (and a non‑reimbursable agreement) providing reimbursement to FGT for relocation costs when DOT served an order or when FGT had a compensable interest.
- The 2004 Utility Accommodation Manual (UAM) defined compensable interest as having established real property rights, and the 2004 UAM was incorporated into the Reimbursable Agreement.
- Beginning in 2000, Turnpike widening projects prompted multiple Final Agreement Package letters (2004–2005) authorizing relocation costs to be submitted to DOT; DOT contested payment, while FGT sought reimbursement and a declaratory judgment on easement width.
- The trial court awarded a 15‑foot permanent width on each side and a 75‑foot temporary workspace, determined the easement conveyed a right outside pavement and that DOT could not pave over pipelines without FGT’s consent except at specified crossings, and terminated the Reimbursable Agreement; the court also addressed mechanically‑stabilized earth walls and eventual remand directions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning and application of compensable interest | FGT—compensable interest defined by 2004 UAM; easement rights constitute compensable interest entitling reimbursement. | DOT—compensable interest is a legal right; there was no order of relocation triggering the Reimbursable Agreement. | Compensable interest is satisfied; Reimbursable Agreement triggered; FGT entitled to reimbursement. |
| Easement width and temporary workspace | FGT—modern standards justify fixed width and workspace as reasonable and necessary. | DOT—no fixed width contemplated by the easements; width should be limited to original intent. | Permanent width and workspace fixed at 15 ft each side and 75 ft temporary not supported by original terms; remanded for proper articulation and alternatives. |
| DOT paving over pipelines without consent | FGT—DOT may not pave over pipelines except at toll plazas, ramps, and crossings; consent required otherwise. | DOT—paving over pipelines may proceed where allowed by easements. | DOT prohibited from paving over pipelines without FGT consent except at enumerated crossing locations; remand to address DOT’s obligation to seek reasonable relocation alternatives. |
| Mechanical stabilization and interference | FGT—ME walls may constitute interference within fifteen feet as a per se rule. | DOT—no automatic interference; evidence insufficient to prove always material interference. | ME walls do not always constitute material interference within fifteen feet; trial court’s conclusion upheld. |
| Remand adjustments to final judgment | FGT—judgment should reflect DOT’s obligation to seek reasonable alternatives to relocation. | DOT—no additional change needed beyond existing conclusions. | Remand to revise part of final judgment referencing DOT’s obligation to pursue reasonable alternatives to relocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Okeelanta Corp. v. Bygrave, 660 So.2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (contract interpretation standard: unambiguous terms must be given effect)
- Cassell v. India, 964 So.2d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (contract interpretation as a matter of law when unambiguous)
- Critchlow v. Williamson, 450 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (extrinsic evidence allowed if ambiguity exists)
- Crespo v. Crespo, 28 So.3d 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (extrinsic evidence to resolve ambiguity in contracts)
- Segal v. Rhumbline Int’l, Inc., 688 So.2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (contract terms rationally susceptible to more than one construction)
- Luna v. Northwest Pipeline Corp., 241 P.3d 945 (Idaho 2010) (no evidence supported fixed width without showing parties’ intent at grant)