ILNews

Circuit Court rules in favor of utility

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed summary judgment in favor of a Louisville utility in a dispute as to whether landowners could eject the utility from their property after violating portions of the lease. The appellate judges also declined to certify a question to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Cedar Farm owns land along the Ohio River, which contains Indiana’s only antebellum plantation complex. The complex is on the National Register of Historic Places, and part of the land is considered a “classified forest” by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. The property has various public uses.

Cedar Farm and Louisville Gas and Electric Co. have had leases for storing and extracting oil and natural gas from portions of the property since 1947. An amended lease in 1996 only allows termination at any time by LG&E, or if the utility fails to make timely payments to Cedar Farm. There is a specific provision that LG&E will pay for damages caused by its operations.

Cedar Farm filed a lawsuit claiming LG&E repeatedly breached the lease and its crews, or crews hired by it, caused damage to the property and even prevented the owners from access the land in December 2008. Cedar Farm wanted to evict LG&E, terminate the lease, and sought damages.

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of LG&E on the ejectment claim, rejecting Cedar Farm’s arguments that lack of a clause regarding termination for the conduct committed by LG&E did not bar its ejectment action. Cedar Farms later dismissed its damages claim with prejudice so it could appeal the ejectment claim.

In Cedar Farm, Harrison County Inc. v. Louisville Gas and Electric Co., No. 10-2234, the 7th Circuit judges noted that under Indiana law, courts generally will enforce forfeiture or termination clauses in these kinds of leases before drilling begins, but after drilling begins courts are reluctant to enforce even explicit forfeiture provisions if damages can adequately compensate the lessor.

“But to survive summary judgment in this case and under this Lease, Cedar Farm needed to provide specific evidence in order to show a trier of fact the environmental impact of LG&E’s actions and why writing a check would be insufficient,” wrote Judge Ann Claire Williams. “An affidavit or other form of proof along these lines was necessary, and Cedar Farm did not submit, and does not argue it was prevented from submitting, such evidence to the district court.”

The federal appellate court also declined Cedar Farm’s request to certify a question to the Indiana Supreme Court – “whether Indiana would allow a lessor to terminate an oil-and-gas lease where recurring breaches of the lease threaten to inflict intangible, irreparable harm on the subject property.” Cedar Farm seeks to certify the question of whether the type of recurring damage alleged would suffice, which is not an appropriate question for certification, the judges held.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT