In Re: Condemnation by PennDOT, of Right-of-Way for SR 1032, Section B02, in the Borough of Rochester: Cronimet Corp. v. PennDOT
137 A.3d 666
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- DOT condemned a temporary construction easement (13,517 sq. ft.) on Cronimet Corporation’s property for a ramp-widening project; parties agreed to a $175,000 settlement for damages under the Eminent Domain Code and discontinued the condemnation case.
- After the contractor vacated the easement, Cronimet discovered damage within the easement area (fences, gate, curbing, asphalt, wall, building exterior) and sought to reopen the eminent domain case to recover restoration/repair costs.
- Cronimet acknowledged the Code does not expressly require DOT to restore property and admitted there is no routine mechanism to reopen a settled eminent domain proceeding, but argued subsequent damages were recoverable under eminent domain principles (citing a federal decision).
- The trial court denied Cronimet’s petition to reopen, concluding the alleged harms sounded in trespass/neglect by a contractor (not a de facto taking) and thus were not recoverable under the Code.
- On appeal the Commonwealth Court affirmed: the harms were incidental, reparable, not a de facto taking, and therefore the proper remedy (if any) is a tort action rather than reopening the eminent domain proceeding; the settlement/praecipe also provided no basis to reopen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-taking physical damage discovered after settlement may be recovered under the Eminent Domain Code | Damages within the easement are "restoration" damages and an immediate/necessary consequence of the taking, recoverable in eminent domain | Damages are tortious/neglect by contractor, reparable, not a de facto taking; settlement discharged Code claims | Held: Damages sound in trespass; not compensable under the Code; eminent domain not proper remedy |
| Whether the damages constituted a de facto taking (permanent deprivation of use) | The destruction/degradation substantially deprived use and thus constitutes a taking | The harms were incidental, reparable, and not intended; no loss of use or access | Held: Not a de facto taking — harms are reparable and not permanent |
| Whether actions by an independent contractor convert the claim into an eminent domain claim | Argued DOT/its agents are liable under eminent domain principles for damage within the easement | Where damage is caused by a contractor, remedy lies in tort against contractor unless DOT authorized/directly directed the conduct | Held: Contractor-caused damage points to tort; absent direction/authorization by DOT, remedy is trespass/tort |
| Whether the settlement/stipulation can be reopened to pursue additional Code damages | Settlement preserved right to pursue consequential restoration damages discovered post-settlement | Settlement/praecipe discharged all Chapter 7 and related Code claims; no basis to reopen absent fraud/mistake | Held: Settlement bars reopening; no allegation of fraud/mistake — no legal basis to reopen (court also resolved merits) |
Key Cases Cited
- Poole v. Township of Deerfield, 843 A.2d 422 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (acts causing specific, negligent damage are properly pursued in trespass rather than eminent domain)
- Fulmer v. White Oaks Borough, 606 A.2d 589 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (deliberate occupation or appropriation can constitute a de facto taking; distinguishes intentional occupation from accidental damage)
- Daw v. Department of Transportation, 768 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (limits on recovery of consequential damages under the Code; consequential damages are narrow and specific)
- Deets v. Mountaintop Area Joint Sanitary Authority, 479 A.2d 49 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (damage caused by a contractor is generally remediable in tort, not eminent domain)
- Elser v. Department of Transportation, 651 A.2d 567 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (deliberate occupation of access ways can be treated as an eminent domain taking)