Lincoln Investors, L.P., Lincoln Court, Inc. v. F.A. King, Jr.
152 A.3d 382
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Lincoln Investors owns a shopping center in Chester County that experienced repeated flooding from 1999 through 2011; Lincoln sued in 2012 alleging violations of the Storm Water Management Act (the Act), including Section 13 and seeking damages under Section 15(c).
- Lincoln’s engineer attributed the flooding to inadequate stormwater systems on surrounding properties; Lincoln sued multiple private and public defendants (neighbors, township, county, state agencies, contractors).
- Chester County did not adopt a watershed storm water plan for the Valley Creek Watershed until February 2011, despite the Act’s earlier timetable.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment dismissing Lincoln’s Section 13/Section 15(c) damage claims for flooding that occurred before February 2011, reasoning a county watershed storm water plan is prerequisite to Section 13 liability.
- Lincoln appealed interlocutorily; the Commonwealth Court reviewed statutory construction de novo and considered whether a county-adopted watershed storm water plan is required for liability under Section 13 and damages under Section 15(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a county-adopted watershed storm water plan is a prerequisite to liability under Section 13 (and damages under Section 15(c)) | Section 13 requires landowners to implement measures “consistent with” an applicable plan only if one exists; subsections (1) and (2) impose independent duties (no plan needed) | Section 13’s duty is to implement measures consistent with the applicable watershed plan; without a county plan there are no plan terms to violate, so no Section 13 violation/damages | Held: A county-adopted watershed storm water plan (as defined in the Act) is required for liability under Section 13 and for damages under Section 15(c); summary judgment affirmed for pre-February 2011 conduct. |
| Whether injunctive/equitable remedies under Section 15(b) require a county watershed plan | Lincoln: Section 15(b) remedies apply for violations of the Act itself and therefore can be pursued even without a county plan | Defendants: argued plan is prerequisite for Act-based liability | Held: Section 15(b) equitable remedies are available for violations of the Act itself or of watershed plans/regulations; a county watershed plan is not a prerequisite to pursue relief under Section 15(b) (but Section 15(c) damages require a Section 13 violation tied to a county plan). |
Key Cases Cited
- Merlino v. Delaware County, 711 A.2d 1100 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (Section 15 allows aggrieved private citizens to sue for violations of the Act itself)
- Bahor v. City of Pittsburgh, 631 A.2d 731 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (plaintiff must introduce the applicable watershed storm water plan and any alleged violation to support Section 13/15 relief)
- Glencannon Homes Ass'n, Inc. v. North Strabane Township, 116 A.3d 706 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (affirmance did not decide whether a county watershed plan is prerequisite to Section 13 liability)
- Roethlein v. Portnoff Law Assocs., Ltd., 81 A.3d 816 (Pa.) (statutory language must be read in context to give effect to all provisions)