Eastman v. Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing LLC, 284 P.3d 1049

Coffeyville Resources released about 90,000 gallons of crude oil into Verdigris River floodwaters in 2007.
Eastmans filed suit in 2010 alleging damages to their pecan grove.
Eastmans initially pursued continuing nuisance then statutory damages under K.S.A. 65-6203.
Coffeyville Resources admitted potential liability under 65-6203 but argued 2-year statute of limitations (60-513[a][4]).
Eastmans argued a 3-year limitations period (60-512[2]) applies because 65-6203 creates a statutory liability with different elements.
District Court certified two questions: whether 65-6203 creates absolute liability and which statute of limitations applies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does K.S.A. 65-6203 create absolute liability?	Eastmans contend it creates absolute liability (statutory duty to compensate).	Coffeyville Resources argues liability mirrors common-law strict liability with abnormally dangerous activity.	65-6203 imposes liability differing from common-law strict liability; not limited by abnormally dangerous activity.
Which statute of limitations applies to 65-6203 actions?	Eastmans seek 3-year limit under 60-512(2).	Coffeyville Resources urges 2-year limit under 60-513(a)(4).	3-year statute of limitations in 60-512(2) applies to 65-6203 actions.

Williams v. Amoco Production Co., 241 Kan. 102 (Kan. 1987) (adopts abnormally dangerous activity test for strict liability in Kansas)
Burnett v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, 283 Kan. 134 (Kan. 2007) (identical-elements test for applying 60-512(2) to new statutory rights)
McCormick v. City of Lawrence, 278 Kan. 797 (Kan. 2005) (identical-elements analysis for statutes creating new rights)
Kelly v. Primeline Advisory, Inc., 256 Kan. 978 (Kan. 1995) (application of 60-512(2) when statute creates new, non-common-law rights)
Pullen v. West, 278 Kan. 183 (Kan. 2004) (strict liability requires abnormally dangerous activity per Williams)