Enbridge Energy v. Fry
2017 IL App (3d) 150765
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Enbridge received an ICC certificate to build a new underground pipeline (Line 78) and filed condemnation suits to acquire easements where negotiations with some landowners failed.
- Three landowners (Fry; Bauer and Lamore) filed traverse motions contesting Enbridge’s eminent-domain authority, public necessity, and good-faith negotiation; the trial court denied the traverses based on the ICC order and Enbridge’s documentary showing.
- Discovery deadlines were set; landowners disclosed an appraiser (McCann) without a written appraisal or identifiable comparable sales for the Kankakee properties; they produced a 7,000‑page work file but did not produce a separate Kankakee file requested by Enbridge.
- At trial Enbridge’s appraiser (Brorsen) testified to just compensation ($6,200 for Fry; $6,500 for Bauer‑Lamore) and his reports were admitted; the trial court excluded the landowners’ valuation evidence (McCann, the landowners themselves, and farm‑tenant witnesses) as inadequately disclosed or improper.
- The court barred McCann from testifying and dismissed the landowners’ counterclaim as discovery sanctions; with no admissible valuation evidence for defendants, the court granted a directed verdict for Enbridge; posttrial motions alleging jury discharge and judicial bias were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Enbridge) | Defendant's Argument (Landowners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether traverse proceedings were improperly handled and whether Enbridge negotiated in good faith | Proceedings were proper; ICC certificate creates a rebuttable presumption of public use/necessity and Enbridge’s offers (supported by appraiser/advice) satisfied good‑faith negotiation | Trial court treated traverse like a 2‑619, denied discovery and an evidentiary hearing; Enbridge didn’t provide appraisal basis so negotiation wasn’t in good faith | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; ICC order established prima facie case and landowners produced no contrary evidence; Enbridge not required to tender its market survey to satisfy good faith |
| Admissibility of evidence at trial (cross‑examination on specific easement rights; landowners’ own valuation testimony; farm tenants as valuation witnesses) | Exclusions were proper: inquiries on rights were irrelevant given stipulations; landowners’ testimony contradicted prior depositions and relied on improper/speculative factors; tenants were not properly disclosed as experts | Exclusions prevented defendants’ day in court; supplemental disclosures should have permitted testimony | Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; excluded evidence was irrelevant, improperly disclosed, or speculative |
| Discovery sanctions (barring McCann and dismissing counterclaim) | Sanctions were appropriate under Rule 219 given repeated, specific requests and apparent withholding of Kankakee comparables; prejudice to Enbridge substantial | Sanctions excessive and punitive; Enbridge engaged in gamesmanship and did not move to compel; milder remedies were available | Court affirmed: dismissal of valuation evidence and counterclaim was within trial court’s discretion under Rule 219 given deceptive/noncompliant conduct and prejudice to Enbridge |
| Alleged premature discharge of jury and appearance of judicial bias; directed verdict | Jury was not discharged; trial judge used phone call‑back to minimize juror inconvenience; no loss of control or evidence of bias; directed verdict proper because defendants had no valuation evidence | Judge created appearance of impropriety by implying jurors might not be needed; that appearance, combined with adverse rulings, requires new trial | Court affirmed: posttrial judge’s factual finding that jury was not discharged was not against manifest weight; no judicial bias shown; directed verdict proper because no admissible contrary evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Transportation ex rel. People v. Hunziker, 342 Ill. App. 3d 588 (establishes standard of review for traverse rulings)
- 151 Interstate Road Corp. v. County of Will, 209 Ill. 2d 471 (condemnation good‑faith negotiation and traverse standards)
- Shimanovsky v. General Motors Corp., 181 Ill. 2d 112 (Rule 219 sanctions framework; dismissal a drastic sanction)
- In re Leona W., 228 Ill. 2d 439 (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445 (standard for granting directed verdict)