Berthel Land & Livestock v. Rockies Express Pipeline LLC
275 P.3d 423
Wyo.2012Background
- Berthel granted Rockies Express a 3.5-mile pipeline easement for $200,000; 125-foot construction easement and 50-foot permanent easement.
- Rockies Express completed construction in 2007; Berthel sued for rock removal, as-built survey, and fraudulent inducement.
- District court granted partial summary judgment on rock removal and as-built survey liabilities, and dismissed fraudulent inducement; damages trial held.
- Bench trial result: no damages for rock removal; as-built survey damages awarded at $42,820; fraudulent inducement claim rejected.
- Court interpreted easement provisions; at issue was whether 8(m) requires removal of surface rock only and how to measure damages; 8(q) as-built survey interpretation also contested.
- This appeal involved Berthel and Rockies Express cross-appeals seeking review of liability and damages rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of 8(m): does rock removal require surface-only removal? | Berthel: rock >2 inches must be removed from surface and subsurface. | Rockies Express: removal of surface rock only; subsurface rock may be backfilled. | 8(m) requires surface rock removal only. |
| Damages for rock removal breach | Damages measured by cost to remove both surface and subsurface rock; substantial claim. | Damages must be proved; if only surface rock recoverable, provide evidence. | No damages for rock removal breach because evidence failed to separate surface-only costs; not clearly erroneous. |
| Meaning of 8(q): as-built survey requirement | 8(q) requires as-built contour/ground-distance data for full pipeline length. | 8(q) does not require depth data; only distance along ground surface. | 8(q) requires contour measurements along the ground; depth data not required. |
| Damages for 8(q) as-built survey breach | Damages should reflect cost to obtain required contour data as per Murphy quote. | Damages should reflect only necessary contour data; excess depth data not required. | Remanded/affirmed damages at $4,535 for final as-built plan and profile map; contour data costs only. |
| Fraudulent inducement claim | Rockies expressed false intent to remove rock during negotiations. | Breach alone does not prove fraudulent inducement; no clear and convincing proof of false intent. | Fraudulent inducement claim rejected; no clear and convincing evidence of misrepresentation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davison v. Wyo. Game & Fish Comm'n, 238 P.3d 556 (Wy. 2010) (contract interpretation; extrinsic evidence if ambiguity; context matters)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Caballo Coal Co., 246 P.3d 867 (Wyo. 2011) (contract interpretation; language to reasonable persons)
- Lozier v. Blattland Investments, LLC, 100 P.3d 380 (Wy. 2004) (easement/contract interpretation; plain meaning and context)
- Klutznick v. Thulin, 814 P.2d 1267 (Wy. 1991) (contract interpretation; ambiguity and extrinsic evidence)
- Mullinnix LLC v. HKB Royalty Trust, 126 P.3d 909 (Wy. 2006) (contextual analysis in contract interpretation; circumstances matter)
- Piroschak v. Whelan, 106 P.3d 887 (Wy. 2005) (clearly erroneous standard for fact findings; applicable)