Town of Dish v. Atmos Energy Corp.
519 S.W.3d 605
| Tex. | 2017Background
- Eighteen Dish residents and the Town sued four natural-gas compressor owners and Enterprise (metering station) in 2011 for trespass and permanent nuisance from noise, odors, and alleged toxic emissions from the so-called "Ponder station."
- Compressor stations began operating between Feb. 2005 and May 2008; Enterprise’s metering station came online June 2009. Residents first complained publicly by 2006–2007 and engaged regulators and media; TCEQ and state health testing found no violations or elevated exposures.
- Plaintiffs waited until February 28, 2011 to sue. Defendants moved for summary judgment on limitations and other grounds.
- Trial court granted summary judgment (including Enterprise on a no-evidence ground); the court of appeals reversed as to limitations and Enterprise. The Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court held: Enterprise’s evidence showed its metering station could not have caused the complained-of conditions and plaintiffs offered no evidence to the contrary; and plaintiffs’ claims accrued no later than May 2008 (two-year statute barred suit filed in 2011).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual date / limitations | Claims accrued only when Ponder station was "completely finished" (June 2009) and when Wolf Eagle report revealed hazardous emissions | Claims accrued when plaintiffs first suffered substantial interference/annoyance (by May 2008 or earlier) based on public complaints and operations starting earlier | Held for defendants: accrual no later than May 2008; suit filed in 2011 barred by two-year statute of limitations |
| Applicability of discovery rule | Plaintiffs imply discovery rule (Wolf Eagle report) delayed accrual until they learned of contaminants | Defendants: plaintiffs were on inquiry/actual notice well before the report; discovery rule not pleaded or shown to apply | Held for defendants: discovery rule inapplicable; plaintiffs had sufficient notice earlier |
| Objective vs. subjective evidence for accrual | Plaintiffs rely on subjective affidavits that conditions worsened in late 2009–2010 | Defendants: accrual is an objective question; plaintiffs’ subjective attestations insufficient to defeat limitations | Held for defendants: accrual determined by objective standard; subjective affidavits insufficient |
| Enterprise-specific liability / no-evidence summary judgment | Plaintiffs treat Enterprise as part of Ponder station and include it in group claims | Enterprise: metering station is a closed system that does not vent, produce noise, or emit complained-of pollutants; plaintiffs produced no evidence refuting that | Held for Enterprise: granted no-evidence summary judgment as plaintiffs produced no evidence Enterprise contributed |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Justiss, 397 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2012) (permanent-nuisance accrual may be fact-dependent where objective corroboration supports later accrual)
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (cause of action accrues when wrongful act causes legal injury regardless of plaintiff's later discovery)
- Schneider Nat. Carriers, Inc. v. Bates, 147 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. 2004) (nuisance accrues when condition substantially interferes with use and enjoyment; accrual date is question of law)
- KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (defendant seeking summary judgment on limitations must conclusively establish the defense)
- Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner, 505 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2016) (nuisance/unreasonableness assessed by objective persons-of-ordinary-sensibilities standard)
- Tenn. Gas Transmission Co. v. Fromme, 269 S.W.2d 336 (Tex. 1954) (trespass by flow of substances accrues when pollutant begins to affect neighbor)
- Via Net v. TIG Ins. Co., 211 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2006) (discovery-rule accrual deferral requires injury to be inherently undiscoverable and the injury objectively verifiable)
- Holubec v. Brandenberger, 111 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003) (nuisance standard focuses on persons of ordinary sensibilities)
- Mitchell Energy Corp. v. Bartlett, 958 S.W.2d 430 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997, pet. denied) (inquiry notice: facts that would cause a reasonably prudent person to investigate are equivalent to knowledge for limitation purposes)