915 N.W.2d 146
N.D.2018Background
- In Dec 2008 Hess contracted Geokinetics to conduct seismographic testing on Franson's land; Franson's well lost pressure by Jan 2009 and he hired Agri to drill a replacement well.
- Agri sued Franson in 2013 for unpaid drilling services; Franson later filed a third-party complaint against Hess alleging the seismic work damaged his well.
- Hess moved for dismissal/summary judgment arguing statute of limitations, failure to state a claim, and immunity from independent-contractor torts; the district court granted summary judgment to Hess based on statutory requirements and independent-contractor principles.
- The district court also held a jury trial between Agri and Franson; the jury awarded Agri $77,924.85 (the invoice amount). Post-trial, the court granted Agri prejudgment interest.
- On appeal, the court affirmed summary judgment for Hess because Franson had not obtained a certified water quality/quantity test within one year prior to operations as required by N.D.C.C. § 38-11.1-06, and reversed the award of prejudgment interest because a jury instruction on interest became law of the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Franson) | Defendant's Argument (Hess/Agri) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.D.C.C. § 38-11.1-06 requires a certified water test within one year to bring a claim against a mineral developer | § 38-11.1-06 should not bar recovery absent a pre-injury certified test | Statute plainly requires a certified water quality/quantity test within one year before operations | Statute unambiguous; certified test within one year is required, summary judgment for Hess affirmed |
| Whether Hess could be liable for damage from its independent contractor's seismographic work | Franson alleged direct causation by Hess' activities | Hess argued it cannot be held liable for independent contractor's torts and statutory precondition was unmet | Court granted summary judgment to Hess (statutory failure dispositive); did not decide independent-contractor immunity question further |
| Whether the district court erred in denying Hess' statute-of-limitations and pleading-form defenses | Franson's claim timely and pleadings adequate | Hess asserted claim was time-barred and pleadings insufficient under rules | Court declined to reach these arguments as unnecessary after affirming summary judgment on statutory grounds |
| Whether prejudgment interest should have been awarded to Agri | N/A (Agri sought prejudgment interest after verdict) | Franson argued the jury verdict implicitly resolved damages and interest should not be added absent jury determination | Jury instruction on interest was given without objection and became law of the case; because the instruction made interest a jury matter, the district court erred in awarding prejudgment interest post-trial; award reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hallin v. Inland Oil & Gas Corp., 903 N.W.2d 61 (N.D. 2017) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- THR Minerals, LLC v. Robinson, 892 N.W.2d 193 (N.D. 2017) (summary judgment and appellate review principles)
- Baukol Builders, Inc. v. Cty. of Grand Forks, 751 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 2008) (statutory interpretation rules)
- In re P.F., 744 N.W.2d 724 (N.D. 2008) (statutory interpretation is a question of law)
- Estate of Elken, 735 N.W.2d 842 (N.D. 2007) (legislative intent and statutory construction)
- Felco, Inc. v. Doug's North Hill Bottle Shop, Inc., 579 N.W.2d 576 (N.D. 1998) (interest in contract actions is a question of law for the court)
- Bjorneby v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 882 N.W.2d 232 (N.D. 2016) (unchallenged jury instructions generally become law of the case)
- Johnson v. Shield, 868 N.W.2d 368 (N.D. 2015) (avoiding unnecessary appellate consideration of issues when disposition on other grounds is dispositive)