Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BP Products North America v. Waterloo Coal Co.

August 22, 2006

BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WATERLOO COAL CO., INC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Algenon L. Marbley

Magistrate Judge King

OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, BP Products of North America ("Plaintiff" or "BP"), moves for summary judgment on its breach of contract claims, or, alternatively, on its unjust enrichment claims. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion on its breach of contract claims.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Background

Defendant Waterloo Coal Company ("Waterloo") is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Oak Hill, Ohio. Waterloo is a producer of coal and limestone in southern Ohio, and began doing business with BP in July, 1987. Defendant Davis Trucking Company, Inc. ("Davis"), is also an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio. Waterloo and Davis (collectively, "Defendants") are related corporate entities, and Davis provides Waterloo with hauling services as well as limited contract trucking. Davis began doing business with BP in October of 1989.

Plaintiff, BP, is a wholly owned subsidiary of BP America, Inc., and is registered to do business in Ohio as a foreign corporation. BP delivered diesel fuel to Waterloo for use in Waterloo's coal and limestone operations from May 2002 through August 2002, and Waterloo accepted delivery of the fuel. BP invoiced Waterloo in the amount of $893,724.39 for the value of that received diesel fuel. Waterloo has failed to make any payment on that invoice; thus, $893,724.39 remains due from Waterloo to BP.

During the same time period, BP also delivered diesel fuel to Davis for use in its trucking operations.BP made its deliveries on a Consumer Marketers account, from May 2002 through June 2002, and on a Commercial account from June 2002 through August 2002. Davis accepted delivery of the fuel, and BP invoiced Davis $40,606.79 for the diesel fuel deliveries on the Davis Consumer Marketers Account and $261,540.20 for the Davis Commercial Account. Davis has failed to make any payment on the delivered fuel and currently owed BP $302,146.99 -- the total value of the fuel it received.

B. Procedural History

On May 19, 2003, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Complaint") for payment of accounts receivable, asserting six counts against Defendants: (1) that Waterloo had breached its Agreement with BP failing to make payment on its $893,724.39 obligation to BP; (2) that Waterloo was unjustly enriched in the amount of $893,724.39 by failing to pay BP under the terms of the parties' Agreement; (3) that Waterloo unlawfully refused to pay the $893,724.38 remaining due on its "book account"; (4) that Davis breached its Agreement with BP by failing to make payment on its $302,146.99 obligation to BP; (5) that Davis was unjustly enriched in the amount of $302,146.99 by failing to pay BP under the terms of the parties' Agreement; and (6) that Davis unlawfully refused to pay the $302,146.99 remaining due on its "book account." On June 17, 2003, Defendants filed an answer denying that BP had agreements with Defendant, and asserting a number of affirmative defenses.

On June 23, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on its breach of contract claim, and, in the alternative, on its unjust enrichment claims. Plaintiff requests that the Court: (1) grant its Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) find that Defendants breached their respective contracts with BP by failing to pay for the fuel delivered to them; (4) find that BP is entitled to judgment against Waterloo in the amount of $893,724.39 together with interest and costs of suit; (5) find that BP is entitled to judgment against Davis in the amount of $302,146.99 plus interest and the costs of suit; and (6) provide such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff's Motion, and the time for filing the response has passed. The matter is now ripe for this Court's review.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate "[i]f the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.