Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford
433 Md. 426
| Md. | 2013Background
- Companion case brought by 84 Jacksonville, MD households against Exxon Mobil for an underground gasoline leak at a Jacksonville station beginning Jan 13, 2006.
- Leak caused ~26,000 gallons to enter groundwater, contaminating residential wells for over 30 days.
- MDE observed leak, ordered Interim Remedial Measure Plan, and Exxon installed extensive monitoring/recovery wells and POET systems.
- Plaintiffs alleged property devaluation, health risks, and costs for medical monitoring due to MTBE and benzene exposure.
- Liability was admitted by Exxon for trespass, private nuisance, negligence, and strict liability; disputes centered on damages and causation awards.
- Jury trial (Oct 2008–Mar 2009) led to ~$147 million in damages to Respondents, including full pre-leak property values and emotional distress/medical monitoring costs; fraud and punitive damages were resolved against Exxon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court of Special Appeals’ banc decision issue | Respondents contend § 1-403(c) required majority concurrence for banc decisions | Exxon argues court had authority to review merits via bypass | Court may review merits despite banc concurrence issue |
| Waiver of right to appeal by counsel statements | Exxon’s closing/opening statements show acquiescence to damages verdict | No clear quid pro quo; statements were strategic advocacy | No waiver; conduct did not relinquish right to appeal |
| Emotional distress for fear of cancer standard | Respondents should recover for fear of cancer due to exposure | Exposure levels below action level cannot support fear of cancer | No recoverable fear-of-cancer damages; instructed standard misapplied and reversed for those claims |
| Medical monitoring damages viability | Maryland recognizes medical monitoring where exposure poses significant latent-disease risk | Evidence did not show significantly increased individualized risk or need for monitoring | Awards for medical monitoring improper; reversed and remanded for judgment in Exxon’s favor |
| Property damages/diminution in value recoveries | Respondents entitled to diminution in value and related damages | Some properties non-detect or inaccurately valued; damages should reflect actual diminution | Emotional distress for injury to real property not ordinarily recoverable; diminution damages require new trial/remittitur with individualized valuation (Albright framework) |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford, 204 Md.App. 1 (2012) (banc decision; appellate review of multiple issues in complex contamination case)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Albright, 433 Md. 303 (2013) (emotional distress/fear of cancer and medical monitoring standards (Albright framework))
- Ford, 204 Md.App. 1 (2012) (majority opinions on diminution in value and expert testimony in contamination context)
- Downtown Brewing Co. v. Mayor & City Council of Ocean City, 370 Md. 145 (2002) (waiver/acquiescence doctrine and post-judgment conduct)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Miller, 159 Md.App. 123 (2004) (governs admissibility of expert testimony under Md. Rule 5-702)