Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. v. Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas), L.P.
449 S.W.3d 474
| Tex. | 2014Background
- Wheeler family owns Mountain, a 153-acre wooded property in Shelby County with a stream.
- Enbridge planned a pipeline and agreed to a right-of-way requiring underground boring to preserve trees.
- Construction crews were not informed of the boring requirement, so they cleared trees and damaged the terrain, channelizing the stream.
- Wheeler sued Enbridge for breach of contract and trespass; the jury awarded $300,000 to restore the property and $288,000 for the intrinsic value of destroyed trees; Wheeler elected the contract damages.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding no jury question on temporary vs. permanent injury and thus no damages; Texas Supreme Court granted review.
- Court clarifies temporary-versus-permanent injury standards, applies economic-feasibility and intrinsic-value exceptions, and remands for remaining issues
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the temporary-versus-permanent injury distinction governs real-property damages in a contract case. | Wheeler argues the distinction does not apply to contract claims. | Enbridge argues the distinction governs damages regardless of contract, and a predicate finding is required. | Permanent injury applies; no jury question needed |
| Whether the economic-feasibility exception applies to deem the injury permanent and limit damages. | Restoration costs should reflect contract damages, not FMV; no overcompensation concern. | If restoration costs are economically infeasible, FMV-based damages apply. | Economic-feasibility exception applies; damages measured by FMV when restoration is not economically feasible |
| Whether the intrinsic value of trees damages was properly available and properly submitted with respect to liability theories. | Intrinsic value of trees is recoverable when FMV diminution is nominal. | Intrinsic-value damages may be improper or improperly tied to trespass. | Intrinsic-tree damages are recoverable when FMV diminution is nominal; submission with trespass was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc. v. Bates, 147 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. 2004) (limits on jury questions and applicability of temporary/permanent distinctions)
- Porras v. Craig, 675 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1984) (intrinsic value of trees where FMV is not diminished)
- Pac. Express Co. v. Lasker Real–Estate Ass’n, 16 S.W. 792 (Tex. 1891) (measure of damages to compensate owner; economic feasibility context)
- Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2004) (temporary injury measured by restoration vs. FMV)
- DeWitt Cnty. Electric Coop., Inc. v. Parks, 1 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. 1999) (contract governs trees; trespass alternative considerations)