Enbridge Pipeline (Illinois), LLC v. Hoke
2017 IL App (4th) 150544
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- IEPC (Enbridge) obtained Illinois Commerce Commission orders (certificate and later eminent-domain authority) to build the Southern Access Extension (SAX) pipeline and then filed condemnation suits seeking permanent (60 ft) and temporary (60 ft) easements over multiple tracts, including parcels owned by the Hokes and PMC.
- Landowners filed traverse motions challenging IEPC’s authority, necessity, scope, good-faith negotiations, and whether the pipeline was a common carrier; they also sought pre-traverse discovery and to present evidence to rebut statutory presumptions created by the Commission orders.
- The trial court denied landowners’ discovery requests, treated the traverse hearing like a section 2-619 motion (i.e., limited evidentiary process), and refused live testimony or offers of proof at the traverse stage.
- At trial the court excluded: (1) landowners’ lay testimony on valuation (found incompetent because it relied on improper elements like stigma/fear and unfamiliar technical matters) and (2) landowners’ expert (McCann) under Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(g) for failing adequately to disclose the comparables/bases (work file was a 7,000‑page, non‑specific disc). IEPC’s appraiser testified and the court entered directed verdicts for IEPC, awarding nominal compensation.
- On appeal the court affirmed the trial court’s evidentiary rulings barring valuation testimony and the expert, but vacated the denial of the traverse motions and remanded for an expedited, limited traverse hearing to allow landowners to attempt to rebut statutory presumptions and to challenge the Commission’s good‑faith findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether landowners were entitled to discovery and live evidence at the traverse hearing challenging IEPC’s authority and the Commission’s findings | IEPC: traverse was effectively a 2‑619‑type collateral attack; no discovery or live testimony needed because Commission orders create presumptions and landowners failed to produce clear evidence | Landowners: traverse is a limited evidentiary proceeding allowing discovery and live testimony to rebut statutory presumptions and to challenge Commission good‑faith findings | Denied trial court’s characterization; vacated denial of traverse motions and remanded for an expedited two‑stage traverse allowing targeted discovery and limited hearings to attempt to rebut presumptions and refute good‑faith finding |
| Whether landowners’ lay valuation testimony (owners) was admissible | IEPC: owners’ valuations were unreliable, based on improper factors and technical matters they did not understand | Landowners: owners may testify as lay witnesses on value with proper foundation | Court: owners’ opinions relied on improper elements (stigma, speculative hydrostatic testing, unverified comparables); exclusion was within trial court’s discretion; appellate court affirmed exclusion |
| Whether landowners’ expert (McCann) should be excluded for inadequate Rule 213(f)(3) disclosure | IEPC: disclosures and a 7,000‑page disc did not identify the specific comparables or bases; exclusion under Rule 213(g) warranted | Landowners: IEPC could have deposed McCann or sought further discovery; exclusion harsh | Court: strict Rule 213 compliance required; McCann’s disclosures were not sufficiently specific and the trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding the expert |
| Whether directed verdicts and nominal awards were proper given evidentiary rulings | IEPC: directed verdict appropriate after exclusion of landowners’ valuation evidence and expert | Landowners: directed verdict and compensation unsupported because exclusion prevented them from proving more | Appellate court vacated only the trial court’s denial of traverse motions and remanded for traverse proceedings; evidentiary exclusions were upheld, but remand could affect further proceedings and ultimate compensation |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Springfield v. West Koke Mill Development Corp., 312 Ill. App. 3d 900 (Ill. App. 2000) (discusses traverse practice under prior law)
- Trunkline Gas Co. v. O’Bryan, 21 Ill. 2d 95 (Ill. 1960) (testimony considering improper elements is incompetent)
- Department of Transportation v. Crull, 294 Ill. App. 3d 531 (Ill. App. 1998) (parties not obligated to aid opponent in exposing weaknesses; Rule 213 context)
- Sullivan v. Edward Hospital, 209 Ill. 2d 100 (Ill. 2004) (purpose and stricter disclosure policy of Rule 213)
- Enbridge Energy (Illinois), L.L.C. v. Kuerth, 69 N.E.3d 287 (Ill. App. 2016) (4th Dist.) (forthcoming appellate decision establishing framework for traverse hearings and deference to Commission findings)