Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Utiliquest, L.L.C.

Alexandria County Circuit Court

Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Utiliquest, L.L.C.

72 Va. Cir. 119, 2006 Va. Cir. LEXIS 276

CourtAlexandria County Circuit Court

DecidedOctober 3, 2006

DocketCase No. (Law) 05-001531

StatusPublished

This text of 72 Va. Cir. 119 (Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Utiliquest, L.L.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alexandria County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Utiliquest, L.L.C., 72 Va. Cir. 119, 2006 Va. Cir. LEXIS 276 (Va. Super. Ct. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge Lisa B. Kemler

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. A hearing on the motion was held on September 27, 2006. After granting Defendant Utiliquest leave to file an amended answer, I took the matter of the summary judgment motion under advisement. After reviewing the parties’ memoranda and upon consideration of the relevant authorities, as well as the oral arguments of counsel, I am of the opinion that the motion should be denied, finding that the language of Virginia Code § 56-265.25 does not preclude the assertion of an affirmative defense of contributory negligence.

November 3,2006

This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendant, Utiliquest, L.L.C., for Partial Summary Judgment as to the Plaintiffs claims for attorney’s fees. Subsequent to the filing of the motion but prior to a hearing on the motion, the parties entered into a settlement of the case resolving all issues except for whether, under the terms of the contract entered into between the defendant and the plaintiff, the defendant is liable for the plaintiffs attorney’s fees. After hearing arguments of counsel on October 25, 2006, I took the matter under advisement.

[120]*120After reviewing the contract and the relevant legal authorities, I find that the defendant is obligated to pay the reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the plaintiff in this matter pursuant to either Section VII, Art.' 8 (“Indemnity”) or Section VII, Art. 13 (“Default”). As for the indemnity provision, it is my opinion that the Supreme Court’s decision in Chesapeake & Potomac Tel Co. v. Sisson and Ryan, Inc., 234 Va. 492, 503, 362 S.E.2d 723 (1987), is controlling. As in the Sisson case, the defendant contracted to pay the plaintiffs attorney’s fees in certain circumstances and the circumstances present in this case “fall squarely within the terms of that agreement.” Id.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By Judge Lisa B. Kemler

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. A hearing on the motion was held on September 27, 2006. After granting Defendant Utiliquest leave to file an amended answer, I took the matter of the summary judgment motion under advisement. After reviewing the parties’ memoranda and upon consideration of the relevant authorities, as well as the oral arguments of counsel, I am of the opinion that the motion should be denied, finding that the language of Virginia Code § 56-265.25 does not preclude the assertion of an affirmative defense of contributory negligence.

November 3,2006

This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendant, Utiliquest, L.L.C., for Partial Summary Judgment as to the Plaintiffs claims for attorney’s fees. Subsequent to the filing of the motion but prior to a hearing on the motion, the parties entered into a settlement of the case resolving all issues except for whether, under the terms of the contract entered into between the defendant and the plaintiff, the defendant is liable for the plaintiffs attorney’s fees. After hearing arguments of counsel on October 25, 2006, I took the matter under advisement.

[120]*120After reviewing the contract and the relevant legal authorities, I find that the defendant is obligated to pay the reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the plaintiff in this matter pursuant to either Section VII, Art.' 8 (“Indemnity”) or Section VII, Art. 13 (“Default”). As for the indemnity provision, it is my opinion that the Supreme Court’s decision in Chesapeake & Potomac Tel Co. v. Sisson and Ryan, Inc., 234 Va. 492, 503, 362 S.E.2d 723 (1987), is controlling. As in the Sisson case, the defendant contracted to pay the plaintiffs attorney’s fees in certain circumstances and the circumstances present in this case “fall squarely within the terms of that agreement.” Id.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 Va. Cir. 119, 2006 Va. Cir. LEXIS 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/virginia-electric-power-co-v-utiliquest-llc-vaccalexandria-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack