473 F. App'x 818
10th Cir.2012Background
- BP Pipelines and CCPS sued Brown after Brown struck BP's underground pipeline while burying telephone cable, causing a spill and repair/remediation costs of about $1.457 million.
- Brown argued its conduct complied with the Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Act and BP's damages were BP's own remediation costs, not Brown's pipeline damages.
- Litigation involved a related state-court settlement (Confidential Settlement Agreement) releasing claims among BP, Brown, CRA and Shidler, potentially affecting BP's claims for contribution.
- BP sought remediation damages and pipeline repair costs; Brown sought summary judgment to limit BP's damages to its own pipeline repair and lost profits, and later challenged BP's recovery of remediation costs.
- The district court awarded BP $1,050,000 in damages and $341,406 in attorney's fees under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 940, resolving two appeals: one on damages (09-5081) and one on fees (10-5087).
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding BP's remediation damages are not barred by the settlement or § 832(H)(2), and affirming the attorneys’ fees award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are remediation damages BP incurred direct damages or contribution damages? | BP asserts remediation costs flow from Brown's negligence under the Underground Facilities Act. | Brown argues remediation costs are a contribution claim barred by the Settlement and § 832(H)(2). | Remediation costs are BP's direct damages (negligence) not barred. |
| Does the good-faith release in the landowners' settlement bar BP's claim for remediation damages under § 832(H)(2) or the settlement terms? | BP contends release does not discharge BP's separate remediation claim against Brown. | Brown contends settlement discharges liability for contribution damages. | Neither § 832(H)(2) nor the Settlement bars BP's claim. |
| Does the Settlement affect BP's entitlement to damages if BP's claim is considered direct negligence or contribution? | BP asserts the claim is direct negligence; settlement does not immunize Brown. | Brown maintains settlement or release immunizes Brown from BP's claims. | Settlement does not immunize Brown from BP's claim, regardless of characterization. |
| Is BP entitled to attorney's fees under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 940, and is the block-billing reduction appropriate? | BP argues § 940 applies to recover fees for property damages including pipeline repair and remediation. | Brown argues BP failed to prove recoverable property damages and overbroad block billing should be reduced or denied. | BP is entitled to § 940 fees for property damages; 60% of block-billed fees approved as reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Conoco Inc. v. ONEOK, Inc., 91 F.3d 1405 (10th Cir. 1996) (remediation costs may be treated as direct damages rather than contribution in some contexts)
- Finnell v. Seismic, Inc., 67 P.3d 339 (Okla. 2003) (§940 fees cover damages for proximate injury to property and related costs;)
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Brantley, 510 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2007) (block billing and overlap between cases; apportioning fees allowed)
- Sisney v. Smalley, 690 P.2d 1048 (Okla. 1984) (apportionment of fees between fee-eligible and non-fee-eligible claims)
- Kay Pharmacal Co. v. Dalious Constr. Co., 276 P.2d 756 (Okla. 1954) (release language governs interpretation of contractual releases)