Duquesne Light Co. v. Longue Vue Club
63 A.3d 270
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Longue Vue owns two parcels in Penn Hills (Parcel 1 from 1920 deed; Parcel 2 from 1949 deed) hosting the Longue Vue Club.
- Duquesne Light holds perpetual 50-foot easements over Parcel 1 (1949) and Parcel 2 (1949) for transmission lines and related facilities.
- The easements have been used since 1949 to support a 69kV transmission line; upgrade to 345kV was pursued starting in 2009.
- PUC approved the 345kV upgrade on February 10, 2011; Longue Vue did not participate in the PUC proceedings.
- Duquesne Light planned temporary access roads and bore tests; Longue Vue denied access on December 9, 2010 and March 23, 2012.
- Trial court granted a preliminary injunction on June 13, 2012; the appeal challenged whether prereqs for injunctive relief were met and the scope of easement rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether irreparable harm supports the injunction | Duquesne Light shows imminent, irreparable harm from delays. | Longue Vue argues harm is speculative and damages would suffice. | Yes; irreparable harm shown due to reliability risk |
| Whether injunction preserves the proper status quo | Status quo includes right of access through Longue Vue for easement maintenance. | Status quo is ownership/possession of easement land without assumed broad access. | Yes; status quo includes access rights and maintenance through property |
| Whether easements grant right-of-way access through Longue Vue’s property | Easement language/construction implies access and maintenance across servient land. | Access limited to 50-foot easement; no broader right-of-way implied. | Yes; Duquesne Light likely prevails that access extends across Longue Vue’s land |
| Whether easements limit the height/type of poles | Upgraded line permitted by language allowing poles, etc.; monopoles not precluded. | Easements do not restrict pole type/height beyond purpose stated. | Yes; pole design remains within reasonable scope under easements |
Key Cases Cited
- Kessler v. Broder, 851 A.2d 944 (Pa. Super. 2004) (six prerequisites; highly deferential review for injunctions)
- Edgett v. Douglass, 22 A. 868 (Pa. 1891) (right to maintain implies right to access easement land)
- Sabara v. Macsai, 183 A. 454 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1936) (owner of right-of-way may access servient land for maintenance)
- Hammond v. Hammond, 101 A. 855 (Pa. 1917) (easement scope to be construed in light of its purpose and intent)
- McNaughton Properties, LP v. Barr, 981 A.2d 222 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) (unambiguous express easement terms control interpretation)
- Sigal v. Manufacturers Light and Heat Co., 299 A.2d 646 (Pa. 1973) (easements interpreted under contract construction rules)