ExxonMobil Corp. v. Lazy R Ranch, LP
511 S.W.3d 538
| Tex. | 2017Background
- ExxonMobil operated oil and gas facilities on the Lazy R Ranch for ~60 years; after ExxonMobil sold operations, a 2009 environmental report (Nickell) identified four sites (total ~1.2 acres) with hydrocarbon contamination and warned of threat to groundwater.
- The Ranch initially sued (Oct. 2009) seeking ~$6.3M remediation damages but amended to drop monetary damages and sought only injunctive relief compelling ExxonMobil to abate/remediate and prevent contamination from reaching groundwater.
- ExxonMobil moved for summary judgment asserting (1) statute-of-limitations bars the claims (2- or 4-year periods), (2) plaintiffs are not entitled to requested relief, and (3) no evidence of diminution in property value; the motion did not address availability of injunctive relief in detail.
- Key factual dispute: Ranch owner Helen McDaniel’s testimony that she observed oil spills for years (some cleaned up) and had no knowledge of contamination before the Nickell report; ExxonMobil presented evidence that two of the four sites were long-abandoned and uncontaminated after 2005.
- Trial court granted summary judgment without specifying grounds; court of appeals reversed as to fact issues on limitations and declined to address injunctive-relief availability because it wasn’t raised in the motion; Texas Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contamination claims accrued outside limitations | Ranch: claims are continuing nuisance/injunctive relief so not barred; groundwater claims not yet accrued | Exxon: accrual occurred when contamination was or should have been discovered (2- or 4-year limits), McDaniel’s testimony shows earlier knowledge | Court: Accrual when injury occurs; limitations bars claims at two abandoned sites but not the two active sites (summary judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part) |
| Whether discovery rule delays accrual | Ranch: discovery rule applies because full extent was not known until Nickell report | Exxon: soil contamination is objectively verifiable and not inherently undiscoverable | Court: discovery rule inapplicable—contamination here was not inherently undiscoverable; Ranch should have discovered sooner |
| Whether fraudulent concealment tolled limitations | Ranch: ExxonMobil concealed contamination | Exxon: no evidence of concealment; remediation reports and practices do not show deceptive concealment | Court: Ranch failed to raise fact issue on fraudulent concealment; no tolling shown |
| Availability of mandatory injunctive relief (to remediate or stabilize) | Ranch: seeks injunction to prevent migration to groundwater; contends continuing nuisance exception applies | Exxon: relief should not allow plaintiffs to bypass limitations/economic-feasibility limits on damages; motion did not brief injunctive relief | Court: Declined to rule on injunctive-relief availability because issue was not properly presented in the trial-court motion for summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. v. Enbridge Pipelines (E. Tex.), L.P., 449 S.W.3d 474 (Tex. 2014) (measure-of-damages rule and economic-feasibility exception for property injury)
- KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (defendant seeking summary judgment on limitations must conclusively prove accrual and negate discovery rule)
- Gonzales v. Sw. Olshan Found. Repair Co., 400 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. 2013) (notice from expert irrelevant where plaintiff knew or should have known of damage earlier)
- Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc. v. Bates, 147 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. 2004) (discussion of limitations and continuing-nuisance principles)
- BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Marshall, 342 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2011) (fraudulent concealment tolls limitations until discovery with reasonable diligence)