Ambassador Bridge company loses in state supreme court

The Ambassador Bridge company has lost its effort to avert a judge's order to tear down non-conforming structures on the US approaches. In an order issued today the Michigan Supreme Court in Lansing denied the bridge company's appeal, saying "we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court."

The state high court dissolved a stay of proceedings against the judge's order.

Michigan DOT charges that the bridge company breached the terms of a contract for improvements to approaches known as the Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project, $230m of construction of new ramps to I-75 and I-96 plus new toll and inspection plaza buildings.

The changes are designed for a new parallel cable stayed span, that has not been approved by state authorities. City officials have also said that construction  has occurred squatter-like on city owned land without permission or title.  They accuse the bridge company of illegally building on city streets.

In addition the company is charged with breach of contract over failure to build a 12.2m, 40ft wide access road to a new Michigan Welcome Center recently built for the state DOT.

Some tens of millions of dollars of construction do not conform to the bridge company's contractual commitments to the state DOT, its officials say. Retaliating, they say for the company's refusal to follow contracted plans, state DOT have blocked off a key ramp to the new works.

Earlier this year the state obtained a judge's order against the bridge company requiring it to demolish the non-conforming structures and rebuild according to approved plan.

A bridge official issued this statement following the Supreme Court ruling today:

“DIBC (the bridge company) intends to continue its efforts to work cooperatively and make the Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project the best it can be for the main reasons it was intended, the free flow of trade and travelers, and the second span of the Ambassador Bridge.  We look forward to MDOT opening the ramps and working cooperatively with DIBC.  Today’s decision of the Michigan Supreme Court is not a final determination, only an interim decision on this matter.”

The bridge company appears to have exhausted all legal remedies at the state level now, but could take the case to the US Supreme Court.

The company is paying a price for seeing itself as above the law and unconstrained by contract.

TOLLROADSnews 2010-05-28