Kevin Geheb v. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P.
09-17-00107-CV
Tex. App.Dec 13, 2017Background
- TransCanada purchased a 50-foot permanent pipeline easement from the landowner of a Jefferson County tract; it did not condemn the land.
- The landowner and TransCanada agreed TransCanada would not pay tenants for damages; the landowner would.
- Tenant (Geheb), a rice farmer on the property, demanded and received advance payments from TransCanada in 2012 ($51,840) and 2013 ($81,000) in exchange for signed advance releases.
- The 2013 Advance Release expressly acknowledged receipt of payment for all crop and other reasonably foreseeable damages attributable to TransCanada’s proper exercise of easement rights, and included broad waiver, hold-harmless, and indemnity language.
- Geheb sued in 2015 asserting claims including taking, negligence, breach, and various fraud theories seeking additional damages tied to pipeline construction and alleged failure to restore laser-leveling; TransCanada moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for TransCanada (take-nothing), finding the 2013 release barred Geheb’s claims and that no taking occurred because TransCanada purchased the easement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Geheb’s claims are barred by the 2013 Advance Release | Geheb contends he settled only part of his crop losses and seeks recovery for alleged failure to restore leasehold and later crop losses | TransCanada argues the 2013 Release unambiguously released all existing and reasonably foreseeable claims arising from TransCanada’s exercise of easement rights | Court held the 2013 Release bars all of Geheb’s claims; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether a compensable taking occurred requiring just compensation | Geheb argues TransCanada’s pipeline use damaged his leasehold and amounts to a taking requiring compensation | TransCanada contends it obtained the easement by purchase from the landowner (no condemnation), so no taking occurred against Geheb | Court held no taking as TransCanada purchased the easement; eminent domain analysis unnecessary |
| Relevance of TransCanada’s common-carrier / eminent-domain status to the case | Geheb sought discovery and preliminary findings about TransCanada’s common-carrier status to support a taking theory | TransCanada maintained status is irrelevant because it never condemned and obtained rights by contract | Court held common-carrier discovery and preliminary inquiry were irrelevant where easement was acquired by purchase |
| Validity/enforceability of the releases | Geheb did not challenge the validity of the 2013 Release on legal grounds in the summary-judgment record | TransCanada relied on unchallenged, clear, broad release language covering the claims asserted | Court treated the release as valid and enforceable, extinguishing the released claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Becon Constr. Co. v. Alonso, 444 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Long Distance Int’l, Inc. v. Telefonos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., 49 S.W.3d 347 (Tex. 2001) (summary-judgment burdens and proof)
- Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (summary-judgment principles)
- Keck, Mahin & Cate v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 20 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2000) (release need only mention subject matter; may cover unknown future claims)
- Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc., 853 S.W.2d 505 (Tex. 1993) (release extinguishes claims)
- Mobil Pipe Line Co. v. Smith, 860 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1993) (dominant estate easement principles; owner may grant easement that limits lessee’s rights)