Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Albright
71 A.3d 150
Md.2013Background
- Maryland appellate court granted in part a motion for reconsideration of its prior opinion in a mass action (466 plaintiffs) against Exxon for groundwater contamination from a leak.
- Court declined to revisit broader legal holdings but corrected how its legal rules were applied to specific appellees and certain remedies.
- Jury instructions about emotional-distress damages for fear of cancer were flawed because they allowed lay sources rather than requiring assessment against credible scientific/medical evidence for objective reasonableness. The court remanded some claims for new trial where the record supported objective fear.
- The court identified particular plaintiffs (e.g., Gloria Quinan; Amy Gumina) whose fear-of-cancer emotional-distress claims require retrial, and others (the Roths) whose claims were legally insufficient. It also added several property owners to the list entitled to a new trial on diminution-in-value claims based on positive well detections.
- The court rejected appellees’ request to enter judgment for loss-of-use-and-enjoyment damages based on alleged trial concessions by Exxon, finding Exxon consistently preserved objections and the record did not support treating closing statements as binding admissions for those awards.
- The court adjusted the mandate on costs: parties to bear their own costs (parity with a related Ford decision) and denied reconsideration on other points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard/instructions for emotional-distress damages for fear of cancer | Appellees argued their fear was objectively reasonable based on tests and expert linkage to contamination | Exxon argued many claims lacked objective, medically-supported exposure or causal linkage | Jury instructions were legally incorrect; some claims (Quinan, Gumina) remanded for new trial; others (Roths) insufficient as a matter of law |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Roths’ fear-of-cancer damages | Roths relied on Dr. Malik’s testimony and lay testimony of symptoms | Exxon disputed causal linkage and showed intervening treatment reduced effluent levels | Evidence for both Rochelle and Steven Roth was insufficient to support awards; prior disposition stands |
| Omitted plaintiffs entitled to diminution-in-value retrial | Appellees urged inclusion of additional owners who had positive contaminant detections | Exxon had not listed them preliminarily but conceded liability at trial for some | Court corrected omission: several named owners entitled to new trials on diminution claims based on positive well detections |
| Binding effect of alleged trial concessions on loss-of-use-and-enjoyment damages | Appellees sought entry of judgment where Exxon allegedly admitted specific amounts in closing | Exxon maintained it preserved objections to duplicative damages and did not intend to concede both categories | Court declined to enter judgment; found Exxon preserved objections and concessions were not binding for the contested damages |
| Allocation of appellate costs | Appellees sought costs as previously mandated; argued parity unnecessary | Exxon relied on Ford decision and parity of reasoning | Mandate revised: parties to bear their own costs (consistent with related Ford decision) |
Key Cases Cited
- Faya v. Almaraz, 329 Md. 435, 620 A.2d 327 (1993) (discusses temporal and evidentiary limits on when fear of disease is objectively reasonable)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford, 433 Md. 493, 71 A.3d 144 (2013) (court revised mandate on bond premium costs; used for parity on costs allocation)
- Secor v. Brown, 221 Md. 119, 156 A.2d 225 (1959) (attorney statements in open court generally bind client)
- ACandS, Inc. v. Asner, 344 Md. 155, 686 A.2d 250 (1996) (appellate court will deny reconsideration based on matters not raised in the record extract or briefs)