Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, LLP

Main Navigation

• Home
• Our Attorneys
  • Spencer G. Nauman, Jr
  • J. Stephen Feinour
  • Craig J. Staudenmaier
  • Benjamin C. Dunlap, Jr
  • Guy P. Beneventano
  • Lucinda C. Glinn
  • Suzanne S. Friday
  • John C. Sullivan
• Practice Areas
  • Corporate & Business
  • Litigation
  • Bankruptcy & Creditors' Rights
  • Employment & Labor Law
  • Estate & Wealth Planning
  • Media Law
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Non-Profits & Community Foundations
  • Public Utility Law
  • Real Estate
  • Tax Law
  • Municipal Law
  • Health Care Law
  • Right To Know Law
• Firm Achievements
  • Krentz v. Consolidated Rail Corporation
  • Parsons, Murphy and Raffaele v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA)
  • NSSH Assures Breach of Contract Matter Dismissal Affirmed on Appeal
  • Railroad Litigation -- Duty to Stop, Look and Listen Reaffirmed
  • Successful Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
  • Stanford Cramer v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation; Consolidated Rail Corporation; and Lower Swatara Township
  • Penn State University v. SERB
  • Asbestos Workers Local No. 23 Pension Fund ex rel. Norcross v. U.S. 303 F.Supp.2d 551 (2004)
  • Consolidated Rail Corporation v. City Of Harrisburg and the Harrisburg Authority
  • Zeigler v. Area School District
  • Doe v. Rite Aid
  • York Daily Record v. City of York
  • Conrail v. Driver
  • Employee v. Conrail
• News Room
• Newsletters
  • Business & Employment Law
  • Estate Planning
  • Healthcare Law
  • Non-Profit Law
  • Media Law
  • Tax Law
  • Tax Planning
  • Sign Up Now
• Community Service
• Contact Us
  • Directions

Consolidated Rail Corporation v. City Of Harrisburg and the Harrisburg Authority

Background

In the mid 1990s Conrail undertook a project to increase the vertical clearances on its lines, which required the lowering of its tracks under a number of highway bridges, including the Maclay Street Bridge in the City of Harrisburg. A water line now owned by The Harrisburg Authority had to be relocated to complete the project. Conrail received permission from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and relocated the water line as part of the project at its initial expense.

Conrail sought reimbursement of the $461,501.70 cost it incurred for the water line relocation pursuant to a 1941 Agreement between the Pennsylvania Railroad (the prior owner of the rail line) and the City of Harrisburg (the prior owner of the water line). This contract permitted the City to locate its water line in the railroad's private property if the City agreed to assume the cost of relocating the line if the railroad's operations so required in the future. The City and Authority disputed the applicability of the contract and argued in a proceeding before the PUC that the project benefited Conrail and they should not have to pay the relocation costs. Pursuant to its decision-making standards, the PUC agreed with the City and Authority, but at Conrail's request preserved its right to litigate the disputed contractual matter in a court of law.

Conrail sued the City and Authority to enforce payment of the relocation costs pursuant to the 1941 Agreement in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. Following discovery, the City and Authority moved for summary judgment on the sole issue that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the contractual dispute because of the PUC's prior decision in their favor on the reimbursement issue. The Court of Common Pleas denied the City and Authority's motion and, on a permissive appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted appeal on the issue.

Solution

Benjamin Dunlap argued before the Supreme Court that the PUC's statutory authority to allocate costs in rail-highway crossing matters does not divest courts of law of jurisdiction to determine and enforce rights under a preexisting contract. Mr. Dunlap contended that the Legislature's central focus enabling the PUC to allocate costs in the first instance was to prevent contractual disputes from interfering with the timely and effective completion of projects affecting the public safety. He pointed out prior appellate decisions that specifically permitted a party to enforce contractual rights in a court of law despite a prior discretionary cost allocation by the PUC and observed that decisions relied upon by the City and Authority that they contended overruled those cases that did not address this central issue.

Mr. Dunlap also offered the public policy argument that the PUC's administrative expertise relates to public safety matters, not to litigation of contract disputes, and therefore the PUC's jurisdiction should be deemed to extend only so far as necessary to accomplish this public purpose. He contended that a civil action to enforce contractual rights would have no impact on the PUC, its mission or its cost allocation decisions, and that the inability of parties to enforce their contractual rights would lead to untenable uncertainties in commercial affairs. Indeed, without the ability to enforce its contractual rights, Conrail would lack any incentive to permit the use of its property to carry other utilities' facilities, particularly on an uncompensated basis.

The PUC also filed an amicus brief in support of Conrail's position. The PUC agreed that its jurisdiction in this regard is not exclusive and is secondary to its primary mission of assuring public safety at rail-highway crossings. The PUC stated that disputes as to the enforcement of contracts are best left to the civil courts, especially where, as here, the dispute concerned the validity, applicability and enforceability of the contract.

Result

The Supreme Court held that a party may seek to enforce its contractual rights in a court of law where a contract is in dispute and the PUC preserves the parties' rights in this regard. The decision enables the continued viability of literally thousands of contracts entered into over the years by railroads and other public utilities, municipalities and the State and permits the enforcement of agreements freely entered into by those parties.