WPC%  dKqaa ?\CKyIPfWt F RldzJM14Տ E5ٯ~g.e?S C)*ѩwR+V3O}1&+\T*&MW:_G|KhKiԮ ڍ]rVPƲqͩKz-J[̾)L(;Fś^/)/V IkNg6ݨљSE;(P(^P#f+3G-nh2e!dYwke'\h(?tG2 s+0'es(!T3PzyɱC]7l0_,X֘FZ\(Hq # UN % 0(w@G4 0 l 0D J AUN877UNBU>9wUN!U N!E!"7#"UNZ%Z%Z%Z%Z% B%IBM Network Printer 12 PCLIBMPCL,,,,,,0 (   Z 6Times New Roman Regular($ vwdxUyezr{}8e~U][$3|x   $    2    ݀& &Insupportofitsdecision,theKentuckyCourtofAppealscited:EmpireRealtyCo.v.Fleisher,  305A.2d144(Md.1973);#:} &&E#& &:}CertainTeedProductsCorp.v.GolseeRoofingandSheetmetal,Inc.,339  A.2d302(Md.Ct.Spec.App.1975);#:} &&#& &:}UniversalC.I.T.CreditCorp.v.StateFarmMut.AutoIns.Co.,493  S.W.2d385(Mo.Ct.App.1973);EquitableLumberCorp.v.IPALandDev.Corp.,344N.E.2d391 h (N.Y.1976);#:} &&#& &:}Hardwickv.DravoEquip.Co.,569P.2d588(Or.1977)#:} &&#& &:};ModineMfg.Co.v.NorthEast B Indep.Sch.Dist.,503S.W.2d833(Tex.Civ.App.1973);Murrayv.HolidayRambler,Inc.,265N.W.2d  l 513(Wis.1978).  InadditiontothecasescitedbytheKentuckyCourtofAppealsseeJacobsv.RosemontDodge   WinnebagoSouth,310N.W.2d71(Minn.1981)#:} &&#& &:};Kultura,Inc.v.SouthernLeasingCorp.,923S.W.2d    536(Tenn.1996);Devorev.Bostrom,632P.2d832(Utah1981);butseeCadyv.DickLoehr's,Inc.,299 ^   N.W.2d29(Mich.Ct.App.1980);Osburnv.BendixHomeSys.,Inc.,613P.2d445(Okla.1980). 8    #:} &&H#((3$ !      0  (#$  0     $    1    ݀& &ThereisnomerittoIndianaGlass'sclaimthatthecontract'ssilenceastotherecoveryof  attorney'sfeesbyeitherpartyintheeventofabreachcreatesanambiguityinthecontracttobeconstruedinitsfavor.Wefindsilencetobethesimplestwaytodraftacontracttoindicatethatnosuchfeesarecontemplatedbytheparties.#:} &&D#   $    1    ݀ &] &ThereisnomerittoIndianaGlass'sclaimthatthecontract'ssilenceastotherecoveryof  attorney'sfeesbyeitherpartyintheeventofabreachcreatesanambiguityinthecontracttobeconstruedinitsfavor.Wefindsilencetobethesimplestwaytodraftacontracttoindicatethatnosuchfeesarecontemplatedbytheparties.# 1 &&]D#(   Z 6Times New Roman Regular -  $    3    ݀&] &Wenotethatattorney'sfeeshavebeenpermittedwhenincurredbythebuyerinthirdparty  litigation,asituationnotpresentedhere.SeeAltermanFoods,Inc.v.G.C.C.Beverages,Inc.,310S.E.2d  755(Ga.Ct.App.1983)(buyercouldrecoverfromsellerattorney'sfeesincurredindefenseofpersonalinjuryactionbroughtbythirdpartyconsumer);UniversalC.I.T.CreditCorp.v.StateFarmMut.Auto h Ins.Co.,493S.W.2d385(Mo.Ct.App.1973)(indemneeinbreachofimpliedwarrantyactioncould B recoverattorney'sfeesincurredindefenseofsuitbroughtbythirdparty).#1 &&]E# -  $    3    ݀& &Wenotethatattorney'sfeeshavebeenpermittedwhenincurredbythebuyerinthirdparty  litigation,asituationnotpresentedhere.SeeAltermanFoods,Inc.v.G.C.C.Beverages,Inc.,310S.E.2d  755(Ga.Ct.App.1983)(buyercouldrecoverfromsellerattorney'sfeesincurredindefenseofpersonalinjuryactionbroughtbythirdpartyconsumer);UniversalC.I.T.CreditCorp.v.StateFarmMut.Auto h Ins.Co.,493S.W.2d385(Mo.Ct.App.1973)(indemneeinbreachofimpliedwarrantyactioncould B recoverattorney'sfeesincurredindefenseofsuitbroughtbythirdparty).#:} &&E#(   Z 6Times New Roman Regular   $    1    ݀&] &ThereisnomerittoIndianaGlass'sclaimthatthecontract'ssilenceastotherecoveryof  attorney'sfeesbyeitherpartyintheeventofabreachcreatesanambiguityinthecontracttobeconstruedinitsfavor.Wefindsilencetobetheclearestwaytodraftacontracttoindicatethatnosuchfeesarecontemplatedbytheparties.#1 &&]D#<( 9Z &Courier Regular(   Z 6Times New Roman Regular   $    2    ݀&] &Insupportofitsdecision,theKentuckyCourtofAppealscited:EmpireRealtyCo.v.Fleisher,  305A.2d144(Md.1973);#1 &&]E#&] &1CertainTeedProductsCorp.v.GolseeRoofingandSheetmetal,Inc.,339  A.2d302(Md.Ct.Spec.App.1975);#1 &&]#&] &1UniversalC.I.T.CreditCorp.v.StateFarmMut.AutoIns.Co.,493  S.W.2d385(Mo.Ct.App.1973);EquitableLumberCorp.v.IPALandDev.Corp.,344N.E.2d391 h (N.Y.1976);#1 &&]#&] &1Hardwickv.DravoEquip.Co.,569P.2d588(Or.1977)#1 &&]#&] &1;ModineMfg.Co.v.NorthEast B Indep.Sch.Dist.,503S.W.2d833(Tex.Civ.App.1973);Murrayv.HolidayRambler,Inc.,265N.W.2d  l 513(Wis.1978).  InadditiontothecasescitedbytheKentuckyCourtofAppealsseeJacobsv.RosemontDodge   WinnebagoSouth,310N.W.2d71(Minn.1981)#1 &&]#&] &1;Kultura,Inc.v.SouthernLeasingCorp.,923S.W.2d    536(Tenn.1996);Devorev.Bostrom,632P.2d832(Utah1981);butseeCadyv.DickLoehr's,Inc.,299 ^   N.W.2d29(Mich.Ct.App.1980);Osburnv.BendixHomeSys.,Inc.,613P.2d445(Okla.1980). 8    #1 &&]H#  (   Z 6Times New Roman Regular -  $    3    ݀&] &Wenotethatattorney'sfeeshavebeenpermittedwhenincurredbythebuyerinthirdparty  litigation,asituationnotpresentedhere.SeeAltermanFoods,Inc.v.G.C.C.Beverages,Inc.,310S.E.2d  755(Ga.Ct.App.1983)(buyercouldrecoverfromsellerattorney'sfeesincurredindefenseofpersonalinjuryactionbroughtbythirdpartyconsumer);UniversalC.I.T.CreditCorp.v.StateFarmMut.Auto h Ins.Co.,493S.W.2d385(Mo.Ct.App.1973)(indemneeinbreachofimpliedwarrantyactioncould B recoverattorney'sfeesincurredindefenseofsuitbroughtbythirdparty).#1 &&]E#(   Z 6Times New Roman Regular d !  }}}yy}7:}dd7ww7:}dd7  0,X` XX0OYRR v  vw  w #:}RR"#XqX:}#:}XXq#RR:} FORPUBLICATION #:}RR#XqX:}  ATTORNEYSFORAPPELLANT:  ATTORNEYSFORAPPELLEE: $ D  GEORGEM.}zz}PLEWS  FRANKE.GILKISON   $   JEFFREYD.CLAFLIN  MARIANNEL.VORHEES    ALEXANDRAS.LIPPS  BeasleyGilkisonRetherford    PlewsShadleyRacher&Braun  Buckles&Clark   Indianapolis,Indiana  Muncie,Indiana      `   A) xdExA    #:}XXq>#RR:}INTHE  COURTOFAPPEALSOFINDIANA   RRRR#RR#XoXA) xdExA  #XqXXXo#INDIANAGLASSCOMPANY,  )     `   )  AppellantPlaintiff,  ) h    `   )   ` vs.  )  No.27A029707CV479 Hh    `   )INDIANAMICHIGANPOWERCOMPANY,  ) (H    `   )  AppelleeDefendant.  )  (  XoXXXqA) xdE!xA#XqXXXoT# ! "   APPEALFROMTHEGRANTCIRCUITCOURTTheHonorabletThomasR.Huntt,JudgeCauseNo.u27C019101CP37uXoXXXqA) xdE&xA#XqXXXo # &$(    ӜMarch11,1998 '%* OPINIONFORPUBLICATION GARRARD,Judge x V,v*/ x &/F-2 OY  wOY  w#:}XXq#v  v}}@[[  STATEMENTOFTHECASE   xOY  x  IndianaGlassCompany("IndianaGlass")appealsthetrialcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofIndianaMichiganPowerCompany("I&M")onIndianaGlass'sclaimforattorney'sfeesasincidentalorconsequentialdamagesundertheIndianaUniformCommercialCode(the"UCC").Weaffirm.@( ISSUE  (    Whetherabuyermayrecoverattorney'sfeesasincidentalorconsequentialdamagesundertheUCCforbreachoftheimpliedwarrantiesofmerchantabilityandfitnessforaparticularpurpose.@( FACTS  H   IndianaGlassisanIndiana}}corporation}}thatmanufacturesglasswareatitsplantlocatedinDunkirk.I&McontractedtosupplyelectricitytoIndianaGlasspursuanttoawrittenagreement.OnseveraloccasionsbetweenJanuary25,1989,andSeptember25,}}1990,I&M}}allegedlysuppliedelectricitytoIndianaGlass'sDunkirkfacilityatadiminishedoranincreasedvoltagewhichcauseddamagetoIndianaGlass'smanufacturing}}processes.}}Accordingly,onJanuary23,1991,IndianaGlassfileditscomplaintagainstI&MandallegedthatI&Mwasnegligent,orinthealternative,thatI&MbreachedtheUCC'simpliedwarrantiesofmerchantabilityandfitnessforaparticularpurposewhenitsoldanddelivered"defective"electricity.IndianaGlasssoughtdamagesforlostmachinehours,}}extraordinarymaintenance}}costs,thecostof}}repairingmachinerywhichwasdamagedduetovoltagefluctuations,and}}for"allotherjustandproperrelief." P-((   }}FollowingamotionforpartialsummaryjudgmentfiledbyIndianaGlass,on}}November18,1993,thetrialcourtenteredpartialsummaryjudgmentinfavorofIndianaGlassandconcluded,asamatteroflaw,thatelectricityisa"good"undertheUCCandthatI&MhadnotdisclaimedtheUCCimpliedwarrantiesofmerchantabilityandfitnessforaparticularpurposeinthe}}parties'}}agreement.Thus,}}thetrialcourtdeterminedthatIndiana}}GlasscouldpursueitsUCCclaimsagainstI&M.  ThepartiesthereafterenteredintoaconfidentialsettlementagreementresolvingallissuesbetweenthepartiesexceptIndianaGlass'sclaimforattorney'sfeesasincidentalorconsequentialdamagesundertheUCC.Thepartiesfiledcrossmotionsforsummaryjudgmentaskingforadetermination,asamatteroflaw,ontheissueofwhetherIndianaGlasswouldbeentitledtorecoverattorney'sfeesasincidentalorconsequentialdamagesundertheUCCintheeventIndianaGlasscouldestablishI&M'sbreachoftheimpliedwarranties.Followingahearing,thetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofI&MandconcludedthatIndianaGlasscouldnotrecoverattorney'sfeesasincidentalorconsequentialdamagesundertheUCC.IndianaGlassappealsthatdeterminationoflaw.@"" DISCUSSIONANDDECISION (#x @\\!StandardofReview 0%     Thepurposeofsummaryjudgmentistoterminatelitigationaboutwhichtherecanbe 8'"" nofactualdisputeandwhichmaybedeterminedasamatteroflaw.Ind.TrialRule56(C); @)$$ Kottlowskiv.Bridgestone/Firestone,Inc.,670N.E.2d78,82(Ind.Ct.App.1996),trans. H+&& denied.Where,ashere,relevantfactsarenotindispute,constructionofastatutepresents P-(( apurequestionoflawforwhichsummaryjudgmentisappropriate.IndianaPatient's  CompensationFundv.Anderson,661N.E.2d907,908(Ind.Ct.App.1996),trans.denied.  Onappeal,wemustdeterminewhetherthelawhasbeencorrectlyappliedbythetrialcourt.CityofElkhartv.Agenda:OpenGovernment,683N.E.2d622,625(Ind.Ct.App.1997),   trans.denied.Thepartyappealingthegrantofsummaryjudgmenthastheburdenof   persuadingthecourtonappealthatthetrialcourt'srulingwasimproper.Jordanv.Deery, (  609N.E.2d1104,1107(Ind.1993).  0  @  @@  Attorney'sFeesasIncidentalorConsequentialDamages  8   Inthisappeal,weareaskedtoresolveapurequestionoflaw.IndianaGlasscontendsthatthetrialcourterredwhenitconcluded,asamatteroflaw,thatabuyermaynotrecoverattorney'sfeesasincidentalorconsequentialdamagesunderIndiana'sUCC.ThepartiesagreethattheissuepresentedisoneoffirstimpressioninIndiana.  Webeginwithourwellsettledrulethateachpartytolitigationisresponsibleforhisorherownattorney'sfeesabsentstatutoryauthority,agreement,orruletothecontrary.Crowlv.Berryhill,678N.E.2d828,831(Ind.Ct.App.1997).ThecontractbetweenI&M  !p andIndianaGlassmakesnoprovisionfortherecoveryofattorney'sfeesintheeventof breach.}}{} }} }{{{  #  1      }}Accordingly,weaddressIndianaGlass'sargumentthatIndianaCode2612715 0%  providesstatutoryauthorityforitspropositionthatabuyerisentitledtorecoverattorney'sfeesintheeventoftheseller'sbreachoftheimpliedwarranties.Thatsectionprovides: 8  (1)Incidentaldamagesresultingfromtheseller'sbreachincludeexpensesreasonablyincurredininspection,receipt,transportationandcareandcustodyofgoodsrightfullyrejected,andcommerciallyreasonablecharges,expensesorcommissionsinconnectionwitheffectingcoverandanyotherreasonableexpenseincidenttothedelayorotherbreach. xx 8  (2)Consequentialdamagesresultingfromtheseller'sbreachinclude xx 8  (a)anylossresultingfromgeneralorparticularrequirementsandneedsofwhichtheselleratthetimeofcontractinghadreasontoknowandwhichcouldnotreasonablybepreventedbycoverorotherwise;and xx 8  (b)injurytopersonorpropertyproximatelyresultingfromanybreachofwarranty. xx Ind.Code2612715.AlthoughnoIndianacourthashadoccasiontoaddressthis P statutoryargumentunderIndianalaw,}}we}}}}haveencountered}}thisargumentunderKentuckylaw.InLandmarkMotorsv.ChryslerCreditCorp.,662N.E.2d971,97677(Ind.Ct.App. ` 1996),thisCourtconsideredwhetherattorney'sfeeswererecoverableas}}incidentalor}}consequentialdamagespursuanttoKentuckyRevisedStatutes355.2715,aprovisionidenticaltoIndianaCode2612715.WeheldthatKentuckylawdidnotprovidefortherecoveryofattorney'sfeesasincidentalorconsequentialdamages.Specifically,wereliedontheKentuckyCourtofAppealsdecisioninNick'sAutoSales,Inc.v.RadcliffAutoSales, 8'"" Inc.,591S.W.2d709,711(Ky.Ct.App.1979). @)$$   InNick'sAutoSales,}}thecourt}}addressedthequestionofwhetherattorney'sfees H+&& shouldbeincludedasincidentalorconsequentialdamagesundertheUCCandheld}}that,}}in P-(( accordancewiththeoverwhelmingweightofauthorityfromotherstates,attorney'sfeesarenotrecoverableunder2715.Nick'sAutoSales,591S.W.2dat711}}}}}}  #  2      }}.TheKentuckyCourt  ofAppealswentontonotethatWhiteandSummers,aleadingauthorityontheUCC,hassuggestedthat"[t]herecoveryoflegalfeesisprobablyavailableinrarecircumstancesonly."Id.(quotingJamesJ.WhiteandRobertS.Summers,HandbookoftheLawUnderthe   UniformCommercialCodeat302n.57(1972)). (    Despitetheoverwhelmingweightofauthorityfromotherjurisdictionsindicatingthatattorney'sfeesarenotrecoverableunder2715,IndianaGlassurgesustoreviewthespecificlanguageofthatsectionandholddifferently.First,IndianaGlasspointsto2715(1)whichprovidesthatincidentaldamagesinclude"anyotherreasonableexpenseincidenttothedelayorotherbreach."IndianaGlassarguesthatthislanguageindicatesthatthelegislaturecontemplatedbroadrecoveryonthepartofthebuyerintheeventoftheseller'sbreach,andthatsuchrecoveryshouldincludeattorney'sfees.ContrarytoIndianaGlass'sposition,thecommentarytosubsection(1)indicatesthatincidentaldamagesarethe h reasonableexpensesincurredbythebuyerinconnectionwiththehandlingofrightfullyrejectedgoodsorgoodswhoseacceptancemaybejustifiablyrevoked,orthoseexpensesincurredinconnectionwitheffectingcoverwheregoodsarenonconformingorhavenotbeendelivered.Ind.Code2612715(1),cmt.1.Attorney'sfeeswereclearlynot   contemplatedasrecoverableunderthissubsection.  Next,IndianaGlasspointsustotheuseofthebroadterm"anyloss"insubsection(2)(a)todescribewhatisincludedinabuyer'sconsequentialdamagesresultingfromaseller'sbreach.Ind.Code2612715(2)(a).Again,thereisnoindicationintheofficial 8 commentarythat}}thelegislatureintendedforattorney's}}fees}}tobe}}recoverableasconsequentialdamages.Moreover,asnotedbytheSupremeCourtofTennessee,courtsconsistentlyhaveheldthat,despitetheuseofthebroadlanguage"anyloss,"theCodemakesnochangeinthegeneralrulethat,regardlessoftheoutcomeoflitigation,eachpartymustbearitsownlegalexpenses.Kultura,Inc.v.SouthernLeasingCorp.,923N.E.2d536,540 ` (Tenn.1996)(citing2RoyRydenAnderson,DamagesUndertheUniformCommercial h Code11.34,p.132(1992)).  !p   AlthoughweunderstandIndianaGlass'srelianceonthelanguageofIndianaCode2611106(1)whichprovidesthattheremediesprovidedbytheUCC"shallbeliberallyadministeredtotheendthattheaggrievedpartymaybeputinasgoodapositionasiftheotherpartyhadfully}}performed,"}}wearealsocognizantof1103whichspecificallystates:8  UnlessdisplacedbytheparticularprovisionsofIC261,theprinciplesoflawandequity,includingthelawofmerchantandthelawrelativetocapacitytocontract,principalandagent,estoppel,fraud, P-(( misrepresentation,duress,coercion,mistake,bankruptcy,orothervalidatingorinvalidatingcause,shallsupplementtheprovisionsofIC261. xx ӀInd.Code2611103.Asnotedbytheofficialcommentary,thissection}}emphasizes}}the  continuedapplicabilitytocommercialcontractsofallsupplementalbodiesoflawexceptinsofarastheyareexplicitlydisplacedbythe}}provisionsoftheUCC.}}Ind.Code2611   103,cmt.1.Section2715doesnotexplicitlyprovidefortherecoveryofattorney'sfeesasincidentalorconsequentialdamagesand,thus,thatsectionwasnotintendedtoabrogatethecommonlawinIndianaregardingtherecoveryofattorney'sfees.  WeagreewiththeKentucky}}Court}}}}ofAppealsin}}Nick'sAutoSales,aswellasthe @ majorityofoursisterstates,thatattorney'sfeesarenotrecoverableasincidentalorconsequentialdamagesundertheUCC2715.}}}~~~~}}}  #  3      }}񀀀Thetrialcourtproperlyenteredsummary P judgmentinfavorofI&M.  Affirmed.HOFFMAN,J.andDARDEN,J.concur.