Peoples Natural Gas v. Camesi, A., Peoples Natural Gas v. Camesi, A. No. 1502 WDA 2016

Background

PNG holds multiple historic recorded easements (1904 and two 1927 grants) across land formerly owned by the McCartneys/Wanners to access pipelines and a regulator station; grant language was edited to limit rights to specified pipelines and the regulation facility.
PNG later built larger interstate pipelines and related equipment in the 1960s on its adjacent parcel and accessed them over the same route, without recording any new grant.
The Camesis acquired the servient parcels (previously Wanners’) by 1998; disputes arose over PNG’s continued ingress/egress to newer equipment and a pig launcher.
The Camesis sued (negligence, ejectment, trespass, nuisance, quiet title); PNG sought injunctive relief to enforce its alleged easement rights; the cases were consolidated.
After bench trial PNG lost on all theories: (1) no express easement extending to post-1927 equipment, (2) no prescriptive easement because use was permissive, and (3) no easement by necessity because any necessity arose after severance; trial court entered judgment for the Camesis.
Superior Court affirmed, holding the appeal was interlocutory as of right (injunction denial) and upholding the trial court’s legal conclusions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (PNG)	Defendant's Argument (Camesis)	Held
1. Is the order denying injunction appealable?	Denial of injunctive relief is immediately appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4).	Order is interlocutory but appealable as injunction denial.	Yes; interlocutory appeal as of right under Rule 311(a)(4).
2. Does PNG have an express easement including ingress/egress to post-1927 appliances?	1927 Right of Way II grants unqualified ingress/egress to "appliances" and buildings, covering later equipment.	The 1904/1927 grants (and stricken language) limited access to the specifically described 6-inch and 10-inch lines and the 1927 regulator station; later equipment exceeds the grant.	Held for Camesis: express easement limited to original pipelines and regulator; no recorded grant for added equipment.
3. Did PNG acquire an easement by prescription from 50+ years of use?	Long, open, notorious, continuous use (over 21 years) of the route established a prescriptive easement covering Stage 2 equipment.	Use was permissive under the existing express grants; possession never became adverse because PNG never disowned the original permission.	Held for Camesis: open/notorious/continuous proven but not adverse; no prescriptive easement.
4. Does PNG have an easement by necessity to access its landlocked parcel?	The route across Camesis’ land is the only reasonable access to PNG’s parcel, making the easement necessary.	Any necessity arose after PNG developed the Stage 2 facilities; alternate access routes exist; necessity not present at severance.	Held for Camesis: no strict necessity at severance; PNG created the need later and alternate access exists; no easement by necessity.

Key Cases Cited

Sigal v. Manufacturers Light & Heat Co., 299 A.2d 646 (Pa. 1973) (crossed-out/edited language in grant controls intent limiting number/placement of pipelines)
Wynnewood Development, Inc. v. Bank and Trust Co. of Old York Road, 711 A.2d 1003 (Pa. 1998) (interpretation of Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4) — injunction denials appealable as of right)
Adshead v. Sprung, 375 A.2d 83 (Pa. Super. 1977) (open, notorious, and "as-needed" continuity for prescriptive easement)
Ontelaunee Orchards, Inc. v. Rothermel, 11 A.2d 543 (Pa. Super. 1940) (possession originally permissive cannot later be treated as adverse absent unequivocal act)
Phillippi v. Knotter, 748 A.2d 757 (Pa. Super. 2000) (easement by necessity requires strict necessity at severance; mere convenience insufficient)