Florida Power Corp. v. City of Tallahassee

18 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1944) · Supreme Court of Florida · June 27, 1944

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court considered whether a hurricane-induced interruption of electric service excused Florida Power Corporation from contractual outage penalties owed to the City of Tallahassee. The court held that the hurricane constituted an act of God and legally justified the 10.2-hour interruption under the contract. The court also upheld the striking of immaterial answer allegations and reversed the final decree for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Holdings

  1. The hurricane that disrupted the power company's facilities and prevented delivery for 10.2 hours was an act of God and legally justified the company's non-delivery under the contract.
  2. The provisions of Article 12 must be construed as a whole and reconciled where possible so that the act-of-God exception and the outage provisions operate consistently; the contract did not impose the outage penalty for the hurricane-related interruption at issue.
  3. The lower court did not err in striking paragraph 5 of the City's answer because allegations concerning the stability of collections, budgeting, and related matters were not responsive, material, or relevant to the contractual outage issue presented by the complaint.
  4. When a case is submitted for final hearing on bill and answer after the time for taking testimony has expired, responsive allegations in the answer are taken as true; affirmative allegations by way of avoidance must be proven, and the pleadings define and limit the issues.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the hurricane constituted an act of God or a cause beyond the power company's control that excused its failure to deliver electric energy under Article 12 of the contract.
  2. Whether the contract's outage-penalty provisions could be read consistently with its act-of-God and force-majeure provisions.
  3. Whether the Circuit Court properly struck paragraph 5 of the City's answer as irrelevant and immaterial.
  4. What issues and evidentiary consequences follow when a declaratory action is submitted for final hearing on bill and answer.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (19)

  • Sheldon v. Powell, 99 Fla. 782, 128 So. 258(followed)
  • Woodman v. Jones, 101 Fla. 177, 133 So. 620(followed)
  • Southern Food Stores, Inc. v. Palm Groceries, Inc., 134 Fla. 838, 184 So. 502(followed)
  • Griley v. Rackley, 135 Fla. 829, 185 So. 734(followed)
  • Mayfair Operating Corp. v. Bessemer Properties, Inc., 150 Fla. 132, 7 So. 2d 342(followed)
  • Lippman v. Shapiro, 151 Fla. 327, 9 So. 2d 636(followed)
  • Orlando Orange Grove Co. v. Hales, 119 Fla. 159, 161 So. 284(followed)
  • Bennett v. Williams, 149 Fla. 4, 5 So. 2d 51(followed)
  • Knabb v. Reconstruction Finance Co., 144 Fla. 110, 197 So. 707(followed)
  • Hull v. Burr, 58 Fla. 432, 50 So. 754(followed)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…