2025 ND 131
N.D.2025Background
- John and Stacy Bang (surface and mineral owners) sued Continental Resources, Inc., the oil and gas leaseholder and operator of their property in Dunn County, ND, after Continental installed oil and gas infrastructure (including a saltwater pipeline) over the Bangs' objections.
- The Bangs alleged trespass, sought an injunction, and claimed damages under N.D.C.C. ch. 38-11.1 for oil and gas production impacts; Continental counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of its right to use the surface and an injunction barring interference.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment to Continental, holding it had the right under the lease to install pipeline facilities; the Bangs' trespass and injunction claims were denied, but their damages claims proceeded to a jury.
- A jury awarded the Bangs damages for compensation claims under the statute; the court excluded certain damages and evidentiary matters, sanctioned the Bangs regarding expert disclosures, and awarded costs to Continental.
- The Bangs appealed, challenging the summary judgment, evidentiary exclusions, jury instructions, denial of a new trial, and cost awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to Install Pipeline Facilities | Lease does not authorize pipelines for saltwater or utilities; lease is ambiguous | Lease is broad, permits all necessary facilities for oil and gas production | For Continental; lease is unambiguous & allows facilities |
| Exclusion of Settlement & Easement Evidence | Other settlements are relevant to damages; required by statute & caselaw | Irrelevant, prejudicial, inadmissible under Rule 408 and not comparable | For Continental; no abuse of discretion excluding such evidence |
| Exclusion of Future Agricultural Damages Evidence | Past yields and prices prove future loss; court excluded evidence without basis | Appropriate exclusion; evidence too speculative over long time periods | For Continental; exclusion was not an abuse of discretion |
| Topsoil as an Improvement | Topsoil is an improv. under damages statute; evidence sufficient | Topsoil is part of land, not an improv.; no separate damages for it | For Continental; topsoil not an improvement under statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt Oil Co. v. Kerbaugh, 283 N.W.2d 131 (N.D. 1979) (clarifies mineral estate's implied rights and accommodation doctrine)
- N.D. Energy Servs., LLC v. Lime Rock Res. III-A, L.P., 10 N.W.3d 591 (N.D. 2024) (lease interpretation governs scope of mineral lessee's rights)
- Mosser v. Denbury Res., Inc., 898 N.W.2d 406 (N.D. 2017) (third-party contracts may be probative but admissibility is for trial court)
- Zander v. Morsette, 959 N.W.2d 838 (N.D. 2021) (trial court has broad discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- Johnson v. Monsanto Co., 303 N.W.2d 86 (N.D. 1981) (damages for future crop loss must avoid speculation)