The dispute between Crown Castle (NYSE: CCI) and DISH Network (NASDAQ: SATS) over alleged unpaid cell tower site rent has escalated to the Colorado Court of Appeals, with Crown Castle seeking to overturn a jury verdict that found neither company fully proved its case. Crown Castle is claiming $32 million in damages, according to court documents. The case hinges on contract interpretation and whether DISH owes additional rent for exceeding its leased space due to compliance with National Electric Code (NEC) regulations.
Crown Castle contends that DISH’s lease terms explicitly limit its ground space to a 5×7-foot area at up to 20,000 of Crown’s cell tower sites (see Inside Towers, “DISH Forcing Wireless Contractors to Pay for 5G Cell Site Modifications”, July 2, 2024). Crown contends that if DISH’s equipment setup requires additional space, including NEC-mandated clearance, it must pay additional rent. In addition, Crown argues that Judge Sarah Block Wallace erred in ruling that the master lease agreement (MLA) was ambiguous about how to handle NEC-required clearance space.
Judge Wallace said it was “odd at best” that, in the contract, NEC’s parameters were not met “head on in the MLA.” Crown contended, because of that, the jury was left to rely on “extrinsic evidence” to rule on the contract. Crown then cited the Colorado Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Fort Lyon Canal Co. v. High Plains A&M: “Critically, extrinsic evidence can never contradict or change the language of a contract or justify an interpretation not reasonably derivable from the contract itself.”
Court documents state DISH argued that the NEC’s three-foot clearance requirement is not a “setback” or “buffer” as defined by the MLA and that NEC-mandated clearance does not count as “extra space” requiring additional rent. It asserted that this space should be considered a part of DISH’s non-exclusive right to use the area, not subject to extra rent. DISH declared it was “just like any other space to which DISH has a non-exclusive right to use.”
In its $35 million countersuit, DISH accused Crown Castle of failing to complete necessary preconstruction work, causing the carrier costly delays.
The jury found neither side sufficiently proved its case, effectively nullifying DISH’s counterclaims as well. The jury’s decision that neither party proved its case would remain in place, meaning DISH would not owe Crown Castle additional rent, according to Law360.
By Jim Fryer, Inside Towers Managing Editor
Reader Interactions