Vance v. Enogex Gas Gathering, L.L.C.
2017 OK CIV APP 14
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Rufus Vance and Glenda Robertson discovered a leak from an Enogex natural gas gathering pipeline on their property in 2010 and presented photos, videos, samples and expert testing showing oily/foamy fluid and soil contamination.
- Enogex did not deny a leak but asserted a three‑week delay by Vance before reporting it, claimed Vance altered the scene and that the leak was a pinhole with negligible soil/groundwater impact.
- A jury awarded Vance $25,000 in compensatory damages and, after a separate punitive damages stage, $25,000 in punitive damages; the jury also found by clear and convincing evidence Enogex acted with reckless disregard.
- During punitive deliberations an unsigned juror note claimed ten jurors had checked the punitive box "in error;" the trial court told the jury the first‑stage verdict could not be undone, the jury returned a punitive award, and the jurors were polled and confirmed their verdicts.
- Vance sought attorney fees under 12 O.S. § 940 totaling a lodestar request of $425,327.50; the trial court awarded $50,000 and entered findings considering lodestar factors and comparable awards.
- The appellate court consolidated two appeals (one challenging punitive damages procedure/availability; the other challenging the attorney‑fee award) and affirmed both judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient competent evidence to submit punitive damages (reckless disregard) to the jury | Evidence (photos, videos, samples, expert tests) permitted an inference of concealment and reckless disregard | No competent evidence supported submission; punitive question should not have been given to jury | Court: Sufficient competent evidence existed; trial court properly submitted punitive damages to jury |
| Whether the jury note during second‑stage deliberations justified returning/altering the first‑stage verdict or JNOV | Vance argued first‑stage verdict was final once read, polled and recorded; note was ambiguous and could not impeach verdict | Enogex argued note showed juror confusion/intent not to find reckless disregard and sought JNOV or correction | Court: First‑stage verdict was final; note was ambiguous and inadmissible to impeach verdict; no abuse of discretion in judge’s handling |
| Whether the trial court erred by not applying full lodestar and enhancements in awarding attorney fees | Vance argued trial court failed to calculate and award the lodestar plus enhancement despite extensive hours and ‘‘scorched‑earth’’ defense | Enogex contested reasonableness of hours and amount; trial court should consider results and comparable awards | Court: Attorney‑fee award is discretionary; trial court considered lodestar factors and comparable cases; $50,000 award affirmed |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in its post‑verdict handling and polling of jurors | Vance: polling and finality of verdict barred inquiry; judge properly limited inquiry | Enogex: judge should have corrected or allowed jury to change first‑stage verdict after note | Court: Judge acted within discretion; public policy favors finality; allowing inquiry risked improper impeachment |
Key Cases Cited
- Sides v. Cordes, Inc., 981 P.2d 301 (Okla. 1999) (trial court decides as a matter of law whether competent evidence exists to submit punitive damages to jury)
- Estrada v. Port City Properties, Inc., 258 P.3d 495 (Okla. 2011) (trial court must submit punitive damages question unless complete lack of evidence supporting required conduct)
- Franklin v. Toal, 19 P.3d 834 (Okla. 2000) (standard for reviewing motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict mirrors directed verdict standard)
- Lawson v. Nat. Steel Erectors, Corp., 8 P.3d 171 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) (juror affidavit/deposition cannot be used to impeach or explain verdict)
- Whitehead v. City of Tulsa, 614 P.2d 65 (Okla. 1980) (trial court error to grant new trial based on speculative juror note intended to impeach verdict)
- Wiggins v. Dahlgren, 405 P.2d 1001 (Okla. 1965) (jury may change votes until verdict is accepted and recorded)