Appeals court upholds DISH lease ruling as Crown Castle tower payments remain in legal limbo

In Featured News by Wireless Estimator

Ambiguous lease language was at the center of a Colorado appeals court decision that upheld a $32 million jury verdict against Crown Castle–related tower owners, reinforcing how unclear master lease terms can carry significant financial consequences.

Ambiguous lease language was at the center of a Colorado appeals court decision that upheld a $32 million jury verdict against Crown Castle.

A Colorado appellate court has unanimously affirmed a jury verdict in favor of DISH Wireless in a $32 million lease dispute with Crown Castle, reinforcing how ambiguity in master lease agreements can carry significant financial consequences for both carriers and tower owners.

The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld a Denver District Court jury’s finding that DISH did not breach its master lease agreement by failing to pay additional rent for specific workspace associated with its equipment at tower sites. Although the appellate court’s decision was not designated for publication, it nevertheless affirms the jury’s $32 million verdict in favor of DISH.

The dispute arose over whether DISH was obligated to pay extra rent for workspace beyond a defined equipment footprint—specifically, clearance areas required for maintenance and electrical code compliance. Crown Castle argued those areas constituted additional leased space. DISH countered that the master lease agreement did not clearly require extra payments for such access, and the jury ultimately agreed.

The court concluded the lease language was ambiguous and that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s interpretation. The panel rejected arguments that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to decide the meaning of the lease and left the verdict intact.

Justices said they were not “persuaded by Crown’s arguments that the terms ‘set-back; and ‘buffer’ necessarily refer to the NEC workspace. As the complete definitions of the terms relied on by Crown make clear, the specific meanings Crown attributes to these terms are not their only meanings. Moreover, as DISH points out, the definitions emphasized by Crown contain terms—such as boundary, feature, and protective barriers—that the MLA and SLAs do not further reference or define.”

Broader Implications for the Industry

While the dollar amount in this case is significant, industry observers note that the ruling comes amid much larger and more consequential disputes now playing out between DISH and tower owners nationwide.

In recent months, Crown Castle and other towercos have filed lawsuits against DISH over the carrier’s position that it no longer needs to continue paying site leases after the sale of certain spectrum assets.

Those cases involve far greater aggregate exposure than the Colorado dispute and go to the heart of how long-term site agreements are enforced when a carrier restructures its business.