ILNews

7th Circuit: Marathon owes more for abandoned locations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Owners who leased properties in Michigan and Indiana that were used as Marathon gas stations – some of which were neglected, abandoned and condemned while Marathon leased them – will be paid more than the $269,000 a District judge in Fort Wayne awarded.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opened the door for a greater judgment against Marathon for claims that began with its environmental cleanup of underground gas storage tanks at fewer than a dozen locations where it did business. Contract terms called for Marathon to remove underground tanks and return the properties as near as possible to their prior condition.

But Circuit Judge Richard Posner wrote for the panel that locations in Adrian and Michigan Center, Mich., were abandoned and ordered condemned while Marathon was still paying the lease. District Judge Theresa Springmann of the Northern District of Indiana wrongly denied double damages permitted under Michigan law governing the doctrine of waste and erred in dismissing other claims, the panel ruled.

The “contract and waste claims concerning these buildings should not
have been dismissed,” Posner wrote for the panel in Bitler Investment Venture II, LLC, et al. v. Marathon Petroleum Company LP, et al., 12-3722.

“So the judgment awarding damages for waste regarding the four Michigan properties is vacated with directions to the district court to double those damages,” Posner wrote, which would result in an award of $538,000. “(T)he dismissal of the contract and waste claims relating to the buildings on the properties in Adrian and Michigan Center is reversed and that aspect of the case is remanded for trial.”
 
The plaintiffs argued Marathon’s breach of lease and committing waste on the properties were guided by anti-competitive motives. Plaintiffs sought damages in excess of $9 million in litigation that also included a commercial property in Angola, Ind.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT