Henke v. Arco Midcon, LLC
750 F. Supp. 2d 1052
E.D. Mo.2010Background
- Plaintiffs allege property damage from a pipeline and easement under various defendants who historically owned, operated, or controlled the pipeline.
- The pipeline, largely used for petroleum in the past and now for telecommunications, allegedly leaked hazardous substances onto Plaintiffs' and class members' properties.
- Defendants include Wiltel Communications, Magellan Pipeline, and ARCO Midcon, with chain-of-title and control tracing to Sinclair entities and Williams/Magnellan lineage.
- Plaintiffs claim ongoing duty to inspect, clean up, and warn about leaks, and seek damages, injunctive relief, and medical monitoring (later dropped).
- The complaint contains six counts: nuisance, trespass, negligence, abnormally dangerous activity, declaratory/injunctive relief, and breach of contract against Wiltel.
- Court grants in part and denies in part defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions, dismissing several counts and allowing an amended Count VI against Wiltel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nuisance elements against Wiltel/Magellan | Migration/continuing contamination constitutes nuisance. | No causation; no acts by Wiltel/Magellan causing spills during ownership. | Dismissed as to Wiltel and Magellan |
| Trespass against Wiltel/Magellan | Knowledge of spills and failure to remove constitutes trespass. | No intentional act by Wiltel/Magellan during ownership causing injury. | Denied as to Wiltel/Magellan; plausible under Restatement §161 |
| Negligence duty and causation | Defendants had duty to stop migration and knew of leaks; breach caused injuries. | Cannot causally link to spills given ownership history. | Denied dismissal; Plaintiffs may present evidence of duty and breach |
| Abnormally dangerous activity (strict liability) against ARCO Midcon | Pipeline operation may be abnormally dangerous; responsibility broad. | Pipeline operation not abnormally dangerous under Fletcher v. Conoco. | Dismissed as to ARCO Midcon |
| Breach of contract against Wiltel; amendment | Wiltel contractually liable for cleanup/damages; attached contract later. | Need contract attached; others not liable | Count VI dismissed as to Magellan/ARCO; amendment permitted for Wiltel |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must show plausible claim, not mere possibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (pleadings must contain plausible claims)
- Fletcher v. Conoco Pipe Line Co., 129 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (W.D. Mo. 2001) (pipeline operation not inherently abnormally dangerous)
- City of St. Louis v. Varahi, Inc., 39 S.W.3d 531 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) (causation required for nuisance; continuing effects not enough)
- Basham v. City of Cuba, 257 S.W.3d 650 (Mo. App. 2008) (elements for nuisance: injury, damage, causation)