On 17 February 2006, Appellant, Exxon Mobil Corporation (“Exxon”), reported a leak of approximately 26,000 gallons of gasoline from the underground tanks at its fueling station located in Jacksonville, Maryland.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Exxon purchased the property located at 14258 Jarrettsville Pike in Phoenix, Maryland, in 1981 for the construction of a new gasoline fueling station (“the Jacksonville Exxon”). Exxon was granted initially a construction permit in 1981. It applied for an extension of the life of the construction permit in 1983. Upon its application for extension, however, the Baltimore County Health Department expressed its formal opposition due to pre-existing contamination of the underground water supply stemming from prior leaks in the surrounding area. As a result, the Baltimore County Office of Permits and Licenses denied Exxon’s request.
Exxon appealed the denial to the Baltimore County Board of Appeals. At a 24 August 1983 hearing before the Board, an environmental engineering specialist for Exxon, Frederick M. Anderson, testified regarding, among other things, the ongoing remediation efforts for the three prior spills in the community. During his testimony, Anderson described the containment prevention features of the proposed underground fuel storage system at the new station, stating that Exxon was “planning to really take some extraordinary measures” in constructing the underground storage system. Specifically, he asserted that Exxon planned to construct secondary containment measures at the Jacksonville Exxon station, including (1)
During the construction process, Exxon elected to depart from the containment design plans described by Anderson.
As a result of this confluence of events, the leak continued uninterrupted without activating the alarm system. Andrea Loiero, the station operator, noticed inventory discrepancies following the incident on January 13. Loiero testified that, although she realized in January that she had an inventory problem, she did not know that the daily inventory variances resulted from a leak. On 16 February 2006, Loiero reported the discrepancies in her gasoline inventory to Exxon employee Russ Bowen, at which time the fuel system was shut down and the station closed. A sign posted on the property stated, “Please excuse our appearance, we are working to serve you better. Fueling facilities are temporarily closed for upgrade.”
The MDE is responsible for supervising Exxon’s remediation efforts, pursuant to a Consent Decree entered in September 2008.
Appellees filed suit initially in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on 5 April 2007
At trial, which lasted from 3 January 2011 to 17 June 2011, Appellees maintained that Exxon perpetuated an ongoing fraud designed to deceive both public authorities and members of the community, beginning in 1983 with the construction of the containment system and continuing through the remediation efforts following the discovery of the leak. In support of
Additionally, Appellees sought emotional distress damages for fear of contracting cancer, as well as relief in the form of medical monitoring costs, stemming from their alleged actual or future exposure to gasoline constituents, particularly benzene,
To recover for fear of disease, a Plaintiff need not offer definitive proof of actual exposure to the disease-causing agent where such proof is unavailable; it is sufficient in such a situation if the Plaintiff proves that the Defendant created circumstances making the Plaintiffs exposure a reasonable probability. The evidence is sufficient to establish a reasonable probability if it produces in your minds a belief that an outcome is more likely true than not true.
A Plaintiffs entitlement to damages for fear of disease must be confined to injury suffered during the Plaintiffs legitimate window of mental anxiety. The window of anxiety begins when the Plaintiff first learns of the potential exposure to [sic] disease-causing agent and ends when satisfactory information becomes available that puts to rest the fear of disease.
Furthermore, a Plaintiff must show that all claimed emotional distresses are objectively ascertainable through evidence of physical manifestations. Physical manifestations of emotional distress may include, but are not limited to, any of the following: Depression, inability to work or perform*328 routine household chores, loss of appetite, insomnia, nightmares, loss of weight, extreme nervousness and irritability.
The Plaintiffs seek a form of relief called medical monitoring. Medical monitoring is a form of relief that represents the cost of periodic medical tests or examinations, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that are necessary to monitor a Plaintiffs health and to facilitate early diagnosis and treatment of a disease caused by exposure to a chemical. To qualify for medical monitoring damages, a Plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: Relative to the general population, the Plaintiff has been exposed to MTBE, benzene, toluene, or other gasoline constituents; MTBE, benzene, or toluene are disease-causing agents; the exposure was caused by the 2006 Jacksonville Exxon release of gasoline into the environment; the exposure created a significant increase of risk for contracting a serious disease when compared to the general nonexposed population; diagnostic or early detection tests exist for this increased risk of a serious disease and is reasonably beneficial in the treatment of serious disease; this testing would be prescribed by a qualified physician in accordance with contemporary scientific principles and would not be prescribed to the general population absent this exposure.
In support of their claims for fear of contracting cancer, and over the objection of Exxon’s counsel, many Appellees testified regarding their opinions that they, members of their families, or their pets contracted disease as a result of the gasoline leak. At trial, however, no Appellee “assert[ed] a claim for sickness or death of any person or animal.” The trial court instructed the jury that no claim could be asserted unless Appellees “offered appropriate expert testimony linking those illnesses or deaths to the level of exposure to gasoline, including any constituent that has caused sickness or death and to any person or animal.”
In addition, Appellees sought compensatory damages for diminution in value and past loss of use and enjoyment of real
At the close of trial, Judge Dugan granted Exxon’s Motion for Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Claims for Punitive Damages based on allegations of evil motive, ill will, or intent to injure, determining that Appellees’ only viable basis for seeking recovery of punitive damages was fraud. Thus, the case went to the jury on causes of action for negligence, strict liability,
Exxon filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial and/or remittitur, which were denied on 19 July 2011. On 18 August 2011, Exxon noted timely an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals.
*332 (1) Does Maryland recognize third party reliance in a fraud action?
(2) Was there sufficient evidence to support the jury’s fraud awards?
(3) Where a Plaintiff alleges multiple instances of fraud, must the jury verdict sheet allocate compensatory damages among the various instances of fraud?
(4) Was the punitive damages award excessive?
(5) Was there sufficient evidence to support the jury’s award of emotional distress damages for fear of cancer?
(6) Does Maryland recognize a claim for medical monitoring?
(7) Were the jury’s property damages duplicative, excessive, and speculative?
(8) Is the release of a contaminant into an aquifer sufficient to establish trespass to land regardless of the level of detected contamination in an individual Plaintiffs well?
ANALYSIS
I.. Sufficiency of Evidence for Fraud Verdict and Punitive Damages
Exxon challenges on multiple grounds the jury’s fraud verdicts and resultant punitive damages awards. First, Exxon seeks to undermine the legal sufficiency of the jury’s finding of fraud, contending that Appellees did not prove detrimental reliance as to any of the six alleged categories of alleged fraudulent conduct. Second, Exxon argues that the jury verdict sheets were faulty in that they failed to allocate compensatory and punitive damages among the separate categories of alleged fraud, such that an assumed finding of insufficiency by this Court on some, but not all, of the fraud
In reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding a verdict for fraud, we must determine whether “there is any evidence adduced, however slight ... from which reasonable jurors, applying the appropriate standard of proof, could find in favor of the plaintiff on the claims presented.” Hoffman v. Stamper,
At trial, Appellees alleged on Exxon’s part a continuous course of fraudulent conduct continuing over approximately thirty years, based on six specific instances. Exxon challenges the legal sufficiency of the jury’s verdict as to three of those instances — the 1983 construction fraud, 1992 permit fraud, and 2001 double-walled piping fraud — on the grounds that the jury relied improperly on a theory of third party reliance, which Exxon contends is not recognized under Maryland law. We determine that Appellees’ theory of third party reliance fails to satisfy the requirement that Appellees demonstrate personal reliance, and thus, because they presented no competent evidence on this missing element, their proof is legally insufficient. Therefore, we reverse the judgment as to fraud.
To establish fraud, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that “(1) the defendant made a false representation to the plaintiff, (2) the falsity of the representation was either known to the defendant or the representation was made with reckless indifference to its truth, (3) the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation and had the right to rely on it, and (5) the plaintiff suffered compensable injury as a result of the misrepresentation.” Hoffman,
Ordinarily, a plaintiff seeking recovery for fraud must prove that “the defendant ... made a false representation to the person defrauded.” Gourdine v. Crews,
In some circumstances, an individual may recover for fraud even when the allegedly fraudulent statement at issue was not made to him or her directly. See, e.g., Diamond Point Plaza Ltd. P’ship v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Despite the instances where recovery for fraud has been sanctioned where the allegedly fraudulent statement was not made directly to the plaintiff, we have not permitted recovery without a demonstration that the plaintiff relied, either directly or indirectly, on the relevant misrepresentation. For example, in Diamond Point Plaza, the defendant, Diamond Point, made a fraudulent misrepresentation to two lenders, Pinnacle and PaineWebber, “for the purpose of inducing Pinnacle and PaineWebber to extend a loan, aware that PaineWebber likely would sell the loan in the secondary market.”
Appellees contend that, because we have permitted previously recovery where the allegedly fraudulent statement was not made directly to the plaintiff, recovery by Appellees for the statements made to Baltimore County and the MDE is justified in the present case. Reliance by Baltimore County or the State of Maryland is simply not enough, however.
Appellees argue that such an interpretation, in effect, immunizes corporate deceit to governmental officials. We disagree. Government is capable and empowered generally to take action in such instances to protect its interests and those of the public. Other parties meeting the elements of fraud may proceed properly on such an action if they so choose. Appellees, however, purely by virtue of being residents in the area,
B. Sign Fraud and Remediation Fraud
Exxon argues that Appellees failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the remaining three instances of alleged fraud: (1) sign fraud; (2) remediation fraud; and (3) remediation fraud in allegedly misleading affirmatively the MDE. Specifically, Exxon contends that, of the approximately 125 Appellees who testified that they saw the misleading sign, most did not provide any testimony lending itself to establishment of any detrimental reliance or change in their water consumption habits. Additionally, although 459 Appellees received awards for remediation fraud either personally or on the basis of the MDE’s reliance, Exxon argues that at least 300 of these Appellees did not offer any testimony mentioning the alleged remediation fraud in the first instance, no Appellee proved detrimental reliance, and Appellees provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the MDE relied on any false statements.
1. Sign Fraud
Exxon contends that the sign fraud verdicts should be reversed. One-hundred, eighty-six Appellees recovered damages for sign fraud, stemming from the placement of the “misleading” sign outside of the Jacksonville Exxon station from 17 February until 21 February 2006. Exxon claims that of the 186 recovering Appellees, most either provided no testimony regarding seeing the sign in the first instance or “offered no evidence of detrimental reliance or continued using their well water even after they discovered the sign was inaccurate.” Moreover, Exxon argues, those demonstrating reliance did not offer any evidence of resulting injury or damage.
Of those Appellees that claimed to have relied on the misleading sign, none established that he or she suffered injury or damages as a result of his or her reliance. Appellees testifying as to reliance either did not have demonstrable contamination of their wells stemming from the Jacksonville Exxon leak until months after Appellees learned about the leak, or never had a positive well test for contamination. Thus, no Appellee proved by clear and convincing evidence any resulting injury from consuming contaminated water during the five-day period during which the sign was displayed. As a result, Appellees failed to establish a cause of action for
2. Remediation Fraud
Exxon urges this Court to reverse the fraud verdicts for the 459 Appellees who recovered for remediation fraud, claiming that they failed to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence. Exxon challenges additionally the remediation fraud verdicts based on the reliance by the MDE on Exxon’s remediation expertise. Lastly, Exxon complains that even the concept of remediation fraud is a violation of Exxon’s due process rights, claiming that Appellees’ theory of remediation fraud remained undefined and ever-shifting throughout the course of the trial.
The concept of remediation fraud appears to encompass various subtheories premised mainly on actions taken by Exxon during the remediation process. Appellees point to a number of Exxon’s representations, including recovery estimates of gasoline proclaimed by Exxon, which later proved to be incorrect and were amended by a subsequent recovery estimate; statements made by Exxon officials predicting that the contamination would migrate, and thus be contained generally, to a “strike line” within a half-mile radius of the station, which was proved incorrect later; representations concerning the safety of the state action level for MTBE contamination; Exxon’s decision to deliver or discontinue the delivery of bottled water; and, the decision of where to drill monitoring wells and sample for contamination.
We need not consider whether the amorphous concept of remediation fraud violated Exxon’s due process rights. Upon our review of Appellees’ testimony,
A mere false statement is insufficient to establish fraud. Even for those Appellees who could demonstrate the falsity of a statement, no Appellee proved by clear and convincing evidence detrimental reliance. Most Appellees did not demonstrate any change in behavior resulting from any of the allegedly false statements
Additionally, Appellees attempt to anchor a claim for remediation fraud based on Exxon’s alleged deception of the MDE. Even assuming such a claim by Appellees is permissible under Maryland law, no representative of the MDE testified that Exxon misled intentionally the MDE, or that the MDE relied on Exxon’s assertions. Any claim that Appellees relied on Exxon’s representations to the MDE fails necessarily for the same reasons that Appellees’ personal remediation fraud claims fail on this record. Appellees failed to prove any intentionally misleading statement, by clear and convincing evidence, that resulted in detrimental reliance.
Appellees’ proof, rather than proving fraud, demonstrates a general dissatisfaction with Exxon’s remediation efforts. The shortcomings in Exxon’s remediation efforts (and reporting) simply do not rise to the level of fraud, however. Not only was the decision of where and when to test or install monitoring wells directed by the MDE, but many of the allegedly fraudulent statements made by Exxon were statements of opinion and prediction reflecting the available knowledge at the time. Appellees attempt to paint Exxon as attempting intentionally to deceive Jacksonville residents at every turn with a callous disregard for their health and safety, yet provide little but speculation as to Exxon’s actual knowledge during the remediation process. Certainly, Exxon could have done a better job communicating with residents of the Jacksonville area, reduced errors, and described more clearly the investigatory process. That Exxon’s efforts were imperfect, however, does not rise to fraud. Appellees did not prove by
Because we reverse the verdicts as to each of the alleged instances of fraud submitted to the jury, the award to Appellees of punitive damages must be reversed as well. Punitive damages may be awarded only if a plaintiff proves at trial malice, ill will, or intent to injure. See, e.g., Ellerin v. Fairfax Savings, F.S.B.,
II. Emotional Distress Damages for Fear of Contracting Cancer
Exxon argues primarily that, because Appellees established neither the existence of present disease nor that they were more likely than not to contract cancer as a result of the 2006 Jacksonville Exxon leak, it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Appellees’ emotional distress claims premised on fear of contracting cancer. In the alternative, Exxon contends that, because recovery for fear of cancer requires a showing of past or present exposure and objective, reasonable fear, the instructions submitted to the jury were erroneous, entitling it to a new trial. Lastly, Exxon argues that the trial court committed reversible error by permitting Appellees to
We review the trial court’s grant or denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict to determine whether it was legally correct. Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Saville,
The decision whether to grant a motion for a new trial is “within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Buck v. Cam’s Broadloom Rugs, Inc.,
A. The Law Relating to Emotional Distress Damages for Fear of a Latent Disease
In Maryland, recovery of damages for emotional distress must arise out of tortious conduct. Hamilton v. Ford Motor Credit Co.,
With these concerns and principles in mind, the central issues to address in the present case are, first, whether recovery for emotional distress based on fear of contracting cancer that arose from a defendant’s tortious act is permissi
We hold that, to recover emotional distress damages for fear of contracting a latent disease, a plaintiff must show that (1) he or she was exposed actually to a toxic substance due to the defendant’s tortious conduct; (2) which led him or her to fear objectively and reasonably that he or she would contract a disease; and (3) as a result of the objective and reasonable fear, he or she manifested a physical injury capable of objective determination.
1. A Reasonable and Objective Fear of Disease
Faya v. Almaraz,
Because the Faya plaintiffs tested negative for HIV over one year after their surgeries, we held that their continued fear of contracting the virus after the negative test was unreasonable as a matter of law. Id. at 455-56 & n. 9,
Exxon contends that the more stringent “reasonably certain” or “reasonably probable” standards to recover damages for fear of contracting future disease are applicable. See Pierce v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.,
While cancer caused by chemical carcinogens and the transmission of HIV are clearly distinct vectors of different diseases, a fear of contracting any disease has several common principles as a matter of law. Faya provides a template for analogous cases involving fear of future disease: namely, that recovering emotional distress damages for fear of future disease requires a rational basis, based on objective circumstances, that the disease may occur because of actual exposure caused by a defendant’s tortious conduct. These principles are supported by our precedent. See Smith v. Borello,
Our sister jurisdictions that permit recovery for fear of contracting cancer developed an array of guidance by which a plaintiff may recover damages for fear of contracting cancer; however, most jurisdictions require a form of objectively reasonable fear. See, e.g., Atkins v. Ferro Corp.,
Our assessment of these cases leads us to conclude that a plaintiff must have a rational basis to recover for fear of cancer. Therefore, recovery for fear of disease is allowed if the plaintiff proves he or she was exposed actually to a toxic substance, which created an objective, reasonable fear that the plaintiff will contract an identified disease. Mere exposure to a toxic substance is insufficient; rather, the circumstances of actual exposure to a toxic substance must lead a reasonable person in the plaintiffs position to believe that contracting a
2. Demonstrable Physical Injury is Required
Jurisdictions considering the question are divided on whether a plaintiff must sustain additionally a physical injury to recover for fear of cancer. In Maryland, however, a plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress “if a physical injury resulted from the commission of the tort, regardless of impact.” Hoffman,
In Vance v. Vance,
Three key principles are thus relevant to determine whether a physical injury is capable of objective determination:
First, ... the evidence must contain more than mere conclusory statements, such as “He was afraid,”----The evidence must be detailed enough to give the jury a basis upon which to quantify the injury. Second, a claim of emotional injury is less likely to succeed if the victim is the sole source of all evidence of emotional injury ... There is no reason why the victim’s own testimony may not be sufficient, as long as it otherwise provides the jury with enough information to render his or her injuries capable of objective determination. Third, although minor emotional injuries may be less likely to produce the kind of evidence that renders an injury capable of objective determination, that does not mean that an emotional injury must reach a certain*359 threshold level of severity before it becomes compensable. There is no severity prong of the Vance test. Our focus thus is properly on the evidence of mental anguish produced ....
Hunt v. Mercy Med. Ctr.,
The evidence in Vance of Muriel Vance’s mental distress is a particularly effective example of an objective and demonstrable physical injury, as a matter of law:
The disclosure that her twenty-year marriage was void was shown to have had a devastating effect on Muriel. She went into a state of shock, engaged in spontaneous crying and for a period seemed detached and unaware of her own presence. She was unable to function normally, unable to sleep and too embarrassed to socialize. In addition to experiencing symptoms of an ulcer, Muriel suffered an emotional collapse and depression which manifested itself in her external condition, i.e., her significantly deteriorated physical appearance — unkempt hair, sunken cheeks and dark eyes.
In the context of physical injuries sustained as a result of exposure to toxic substances, subcellular change produced by exposure to toxic chemicals — without manifested symptoms of a disease or actual impairment — is not a compensable “injury” under Maryland law. See Hollingsworth & Vose Co. v. Connor,
With these standards in mind as to how a plaintiff must prove physical injury to recover damages for emotional distress in Maryland, we must determine how such standards apply to recovery of emotional distress damages for fear of
For these reasons, we hold that to recover emotional distress damages for fear of contracting a disease, a plaintiff must show that (1) he or she was exposed actually to a toxic substance due to the defendant’s tortious conduct; (2) which led him or her to fear objectively and reasonably that he or she would contract a disease; and (3) as a result of the objective and reasonable fear, he or she manifested a physical injury capable of objective determination.
1. No Evidence of Actual Exposure Giving Rise to Objective Reasonable Fear
As explained above, recovery of emotional distress damages for fear of contracting cancer requires that a plaintiff demonstrate that he or she has been exposed actually to a toxic chemical as a result of the defendant’s tortious conduct. Thus, Appellees who did not demonstrate actual exposure to benzene or MTBE stemming from the Jacksonville Exxon leak cannot recover damages for fear of cancer. Here, eighty-eight Appellees recovered damages for emotional distress for fear of contracting cancer, yet did not provide evidence of any detectable contamination in their potable wells, air, or water vapors.
2. Insufficient Evidence of Actual Exposure Giving Rise to an Objectively Reasonable Fear
In addition to actual exposure, Appellees must demonstrate an objective, reasonable fear of developing cancer in order to recover emotional distress damages for fear of cancer. A plaintiff may demonstrate an objective reasonable fear by showing that he or she has a rational basis to believe reasonably that cancer is likely to develop as a result of exposure to toxic substances stemming from the defendant’s tortious conduct. Here, Appellees contend that proof that the aquifer is contaminated with MTBE and benzene is sufficient to support a claim for emotional distress for fear of cancer, regardless of any actual, demonstrable exposure on an Appellee-specific basis. We determine that Appellees who were exposed actually to MTBE as a result of the Jacksonville Exxon leak (as determined by tests of their potable wells), but at levels below the relevant EPA and MDE action levels, cannot demonstrate an objective, reasonable fear of developing cancer.
Although individuals are exposed routinely and unfortunately in everyday life to MTBE and other carcinogenic toxins, low levels of exposure, absent a rational basis to support a fear of developing cancer, are not sufficient generally to justify an objectively reasonable fear. Here, similar to the circumstances in Faya, there is credible scientific evidence to suggest levels of exposure to benzene and MTBE at which a fear of developing cancer becomes objectively reasonable. The EPA and MDE establish routinely action levels, above which exposure to contaminants is deemed generally to be unsafe for human health. As admitted at trial, the relevant drinking water standards are 5 parts per billion for benzene, and 20 parts per billion
Only eight Appellees recovering emotional distress damages for fear of cancer offered well test results detecting contamination sufficient to create an objectively reasonable fear of developing cancer.
As we noted in Vance, claims for emotional distress need not be supported necessarily by expert medical testimony to establish injury and causation where “the causal connection is clearly apparent from the illness itself and the circumstances surrounding it, or where the cause of the injury relates to matters of common experience, knowledge, or observation of laymen.” Id. at 502-03,
Only one Appellee demonstrating an objectively reasonable fear of developing cancer, Gloria Quinan, presented expert testimony linking her claimed physical injury to the Jacksonville Exxon release. In reviewing Quinan’s claims for emotional distress for fear of cancer to determine if there was sufficient evidence to support her claim as a matter of law, we must resolve all conflicts in the evidence in her favor. See Houston v. Safeway Stores, Inc.,
As noted previously, the Court of Special Appeals in Hunt provided guidance for determining whether an injury is capable of objective determination. The evidence offered in support of physical injury “must contain more than mere conclusory statements,” and be sufficiently detailed “to give the jury a basis upon which to quantify the injury.” Hunt,
In Hunt, the decedent plaintiff,
Here, in support of her claim for emotional distress for fear of contracting cancer, Quinan testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of Dr. Abdul Malik, a psychiatrist, who examined Quinan.
Q: Has the gasoline release affected your emotional state?
A. Yes.
Q: Can you please explain?
A: Well, you know, you get depressed. Anxiety. Headaches. You feel nauseous. Lose your appetite. Don’t feel like doing anything. You lose your enthusiasm.
Q: Do you have any concerns for your health and your husband’s health?
A: Yes, I do. I’m concerned about cancer or any other things that might develop because not knowing how long — I mean, we were drinking it for all that time and didn’t even know it....
Q: You mentioned a couple of things, but do you know whether or not the fears and concerns that you have have physically manifested themselves in you in any way?
A. Yes....
Q: You talked about depression?
A. Yes.
*372 Q: Okay. And you talked about lethargy?
A. Yeah. It depends. You start thinking about all of this, and it just gets you so down and then you just lose all your enthusiasm. You don’t feel like doing anything----So, you know, it just gets you down, and it just comes out in all different ways. You lose your appetite. It depends how much you think about it and when you think about it. If you think about it at night, then you don’t sleep.
Q. I understand. When did you first begin to feel depressed about the effects of the gasoline release on your family and your home?
A. Well, you know, in the very beginning the concerns made us, you know, gave us, you know, an uneasy feeling and everything, but, when it finally kicked in the fact that we had the contamination, it really did and then I had a rash that wouldn’t go away.68
Q. When did that start? When did the rash start?
*373 A. It started before May of 2008. I don’t know how far before that, but I know May of 2008 I had it.
Q. So after the release?
A. Pardon?
Q. After the gasoline release?
A. After the gasoline release.
Q. How long did you suffer with the rash?
A. Over a year.
Q. Did you try to treat it?
A. Yes. I used all types of prescription topical ointments and creams. I was given a lot. A very potent one by the dermatologist. It did nothing. Nothing took it away until we went on vacation for two weeks, went away and not bathing in the water. When I came back, it was gone.
Q. And during that approximate year that you were suffering from a rash, did you ever receive any communication from Exxon giving you any information about any potential association between exposure to MTBE and the water and rashes?
A. No.
Q. You mentioned sleeplessness?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you start beginning to have issues with sleeplessness as it relates to your fears and concerns about the gasoline release?
A. We had in the beginning of 2006 and afterwards and they continued but not regularly. I mean, it was a concern and it would bother me, and some nights I couldn’t sleep, but after we found out about the contamination, it was going on and on because everything would go through your head. You know, how long have you been drinking it? You know, what is it going to do to us? How is it going to impact our lives?
Q. So over this five year period from 2006 to the present, how often would you say you would have issues of sleеplessness?
*374 A. Sometimes, several nights a week. Sometimes, maybe several times a month.
Q. And you also mentioned headaches?
A. Yes. Same thing.
Q. Same kind—
A. It just depends on how much you let yourself get, I guess, worked up over the whole thing. You know, you try to settle down and then it just gets you again.
Q. ... [Ojver this five year period are you able to tell us would you find yourselves [sic] worked up to the point that would you experience headaches as a result of your fears and concerns relating to the gasoline release?
A. Several times a week. Sometimes, it would be a week or so and then you have them again, but would be, you know, several times a week. Several times a month.
Q. You also mentioned a loss of appetite?
A. Yes.
A. Can you talk a little bit about what you mean by that?
A. Well, you just don’t feel like eating. You’re kind of feeling nauseous. You get upset and then you just don’t feel like eating.
Q. Do you feel that way when you’re thinking about the gasoline release?
A. Definitely.
Q. How often would you find yourself feeling nauseous and not willing to eat as it relates to your fears and concerns with the gasoline release?
A. Maybe, you know, weekly or a few times a month. I guess several times. I mean, like, a couple days a week or several times a month, you know. Whatever. Like, you might have a few days or a week in between and then it hits you again.
Dr. Malik testified that Quinan was “angry and frustrated and concerned” that she had been drinking and bathing in her well water from 2006 until the first positive detection of
Q: ... Did you notice anything about her anxiety elements?
A. Yes. She had been drinking and bathing in the contaminated water for several months to years before it was detected in April of 2009, and she had all kinds of problems which disappeared after she was on vacation for two weeks; and her husband also had all kinds of health problems related to [his] stomach, and nothing definitive was diagnosed. And it all disappeared after he started drinking bottled water within two weeks. She was anxious about developing cancer....
Q: Doctor, were you able to reach a diagnosis to a reasonable degree of psychiatric certainty?
A. Yes. She was suffering with anxiety disorder not otherwise specified.
Q: Were you able to determine the cause of her mental disease to a reasonable degree?
A. Yes. It was directly caused by the Exxon spillage.
Q: This did not affect her normal functioning, I take it?
A: No. She has been able to function in her usual ways.
Q: Has it impacted her quality of life and relationships?
A: Yes. She had been drinking bottled water as soon as she learned about the contamination of the water, and she had suffered through a skin condition! ]; and her husband*376 had suffered through gastrointestinal conditions. Both of them are feeling much better away from the water.
Although the testimony proffered by Quinan and Dr. Malik does not rise to the level of detail observed in Hunt, we conclude that the evidence presented was sufficient to create a jury question as to whether Quinan suffered an injury capable of objective determination. Quinan provided testimony regarding the duration and extent of her physical symptoms. Moreover, although much of Dr. Malik’s testimony contained conclusory statements which otherwise might be insufficient to establish physical injury, he testified regarding his examination and diagnosis of anxiety disorder. Although we recognize that anxiety disorder not impacting normal functioning is less severe than the physical injuries asserted in Vance, as the Court of Special Appeals noted in Hunt, “[tjhere is no severity prong of the Vance test.”
C. Compensatory Damages for Medical Monitoring
1. Does Maryland Recognize a Right to Recovery for Damages for Medical Monitoring?
Although the trial court permitted nearly every Appellee’s claim for damages for medical monitoring to go to the jury, this Court has not recognized yet a cause of action for the
The possibility of recovery оf damages for medical monitoring in Maryland was raised, but not decided by this Court, in Philip Morris, Inc. v. Angeletti,
We agree now with other jurisdictions that recognize that “exposure itself and the concomitant need for medical testing” is the compensable injury for which recovery of damages for medical monitoring is permitted, Hansen v. Mountain Fuel Supply Co.,
While problems may arise in limiting the potentially expansive class of plaintiffs in medical surveillance awards, see Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co. v. Buckley,
Although in Angeletti we considered the possibility that a plaintiff may recover for damages for medical monitoring either as an independent cause of action or as an element of damages, we noted that a “medical monitoring claim may perhaps more accurately be deemed a remedy rather than a distinct cause of action.”
Likewise, our sister jurisdictions that allow recovery for medical monitoring, more often than not, allow such recovery as a remedy, rather than as an independent cause of action. See Xavier v. Philip Morris USA Inc., No. C 10-02067,
2. Burden of Proof for Recovery of Damages for Medical Monitoring
The United States Supreme Court noted that “an exposed plaintiff can recover related reasonable medical monitoring costs [as an element of damages] if and when he develops symptoms.” Buckley,
a. “Reasonable and Necessary” Medical Costs
The weight of authority across the country recognizes that recovery for costs of medical monitoring is limited to costs that are necessary and reasonable. The seminal case recognizing compensable damages for medical monitoring seems to be Ayers v. Jackson,
To determine whether monitoring is reasonably necessary, several courts have established specific multi-factor tests, such as that adopted by the Supreme Court of California:
In determining the reasonableness and necessity of monitoring ... the following factors are relevant: (1) the significance and extent of the plaintiffs exposure to chemicals; (2) the toxicity of the chemicals; (3) the relative increase in the chance of onset of disease in the exposed plaintiff as a result of the exposure, when compared to (a) the plaintiffs chances of developing the disease had he or she not been exposed, and (b) the chances of the members of the public at large of developing the disease; (4) the seriousness of the disease for which the plaintiff is at risk; and (5) the clinical value of early detection and diagnosis.
Potter,
Keys to a plaintiffs recovery are evidence of causation (from the defendant’s tortious conduct) and a significantly increased risk of contracting a latent disease. For example, in Theer v. Philip Carey Co.,
Although we recognize that the injury giving rise to an alleged need for medical monitoring costs is the exposure to toxic substances, and that this exрosure is an invasion of a legally-protected interest, see Hansen,
For a fact finder to “ascertain the probability” that the remedy of medical monitoring is appropriate, Paoli I,
Quantifiable and reliable indicators of risk in developing disease are also helpful to determine a “significant” increase in risk of disease, thus ensuring that the nature and extent of medical monitoring is actually greater than that which should be undertaken by the general population, a key purpose in awarding appropriate medical monitoring damages. Id. at 825 (noting that “there can be no recovery for preventative medical care and checkups to which members of the public at large should prudently submit”).
c. A Showing of “Physical Injury” is Not Required
We conclude, as have the majority of our sister jurisdictions, that evidence of physical injury is not required to support costs for medical surveillance. A compelling illustration of why proof of physical injury is not needed for this form of relief is Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.,
The federal court rejected the argument that the need for diagnostic examination was not a compensable injury, and affirmed the imposition on Lockheed of liability for diagnostic examination expenses because the need for such examinations
As we discussed earlier, the physical injury a plaintiff suffers in a claim for recovery for medical surveillance costs is the invasion of a legally-protected interest. See Hansen,
d. Administration of Medical Monitoring Award Through an Equitable Fund
We note with approval the recent tendency of many courts that award medical monitoring costs to do so by establishing equitably a court-supervised fund, administered by a trustee, at the expense of the defendant. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford,
[T]he cases authorizing recovery for medical monitoring in the absence of physical injury do not endorse a full-blown, traditional tort law cause of action for lump-sum damages— of the sort that the Court of Appeals seems to have endorsed here. Rather, those courts, while recognizing that medical monitoring costs can amount to a harm that justifies a tort remedy, have suggested, or imposed, special limitations on that remedy. Compare Ayers, [ ]525 A.2d at 314 (recommending in future cases creation of “a court-supervised fund to administer medical-surveillance payments”); Hansen, [858 P.2d] at 982 (suggesting insurance mechanism or court-supervised fund as proper remedy); Potter, [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 550 ]863 P.2d at 825, n. 28 (suggesting that a lump-sum damages award would be inappropriate); Burns, [ ]752 P.2d at 34 (holding that lump-sum damages are not appropriate) with, e.g., Honeycutt v. Walden,294 Ark. 440 ,743 S.W.2d 809 (1988) (damages award for future medical expenses made necessary by physical injury are awarded as lump-sum payment) ...
Buckley,
The District Court of Appeals of Florida, holding that future medical monitoring costs are compensable in Florida, determined that a Florida trial court could use its equitable powers to create a fund for medical monitoring recovery, if the plaintiff established a prima facie case for recovery. Petito v.
In sum, we hold that Maryland recognizes a remedy of recovery for medical monitoring costs resulting from exposure to toxic substances resulting from a defendant’s tortious conduct. To sustain an award for recovery for medical costs, a plaintiff must show that reasonable medical costs are necessary due to a reasonably certain and significant increased risk of developing a latent disease as a result of exposure to a toxic substance. In awarding relief, a court must consider whether the plaintiff has shown: (1) that the рlaintiff was significantly exposed to a proven hazardous substance through the defendant’s tortious conduct; (2) that, as a proximate result of significant exposure, the plaintiff suffers a significantly increased risk of contracting a latent disease; (3) that increased risk makes periodic diagnostic medical examinations reasonably necessary; and (4) that monitoring and testing procedures exist which make the early detection and treatment of the disease possible and beneficial.
To determine what is a “significantly increased risk of contracting a latent disease” for a particular plaintiff, the court may consider quantifiable and reliable medical expert testimony that indicates the plaintiffs chances of developing the disease had he or she not been exposed, compared to the
3. Recovery of Medical Monitoring Damages by Appellees in the Present Case
Appellees’ claims for medical monitoring damages suffer from various deficiencies of proof under the tests set out above. Specifically, because Appellees with no detected contamination have not demonstrated sufficiently that they were exposed significantly to a proven hazardous substance, they may not recover damages for medical monitoring.
A. The Proper Measure of Compensatory Damages for Injury to Real Property
As noted earlier, we review the trial court’s denial of Exxon’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict to determine whether it was legally correct. Scapa Dryer Fabrics,
1. Appellees May Not Recover Emotional Distress Damages For Injury to Real Property
The jury awarded approximately one hundred and ninety-five Appellees emotional distress damages for fear of loss of property value and fear of loss of use and enjoyment. Exxon contends that these awards were impermissible. Exx
We need not reach the latter contentions. Ordinarily, as Judge James Eyler of the Court of Special Appeals noted in Ford, in the absence of fraud, malice, or like motives, “emotional distress attendant to property damage is not compensable.” Ford,
The jury awarded to Appellees, in many instances, damages for both diminution in property value and past loss of
Exxon contends that the awards for past loss of use and enjoyment are duplicative of (and subsumed by) the awards for diminution in value, and therefore the trial court erred in permitting recovery of both. Because diminution in value of real property, measured on the date the leak was discovered, encompasses necessarily the lost use and enjoyment of that real property suffered by the property owner from that date forward, Exxon contends that there remains no period of time for which Appellees are eligible for lost use and enjoyment damages. Moreover, Exxon avers that, even if Appellees were entitled to receive both types of damages, the awards for loss of use and enjoyment are excessive because they, in conjunction with the diminution in value damages, exceeded frequently the unimpaired value of the real property. In
Assuming that the trial court required properly Appellees to elect between pursuing either diminution in value or prospective loss of use and enjoyment damages, and Appellees were in fact entitled to receive damages for diminution in value,
Compensation for injury to real property is dependent generally upon the character of the harm. See, e.g., Hall v. Lovell Regency Homes Ltd. P’ship,
The definition of fair market value suggests that an agreement as to price between the prospective buyer and prospective seller necessarily takes into account any known defects or deleterious conditions in the property.
Owners of real property, however, are not precluded necessarily from recovering both permanent diminution in value and loss of use and enjoyment damages, see Maxa,
In Mayor & City Council of Havre de Grace v. Maxa, we considered whether an individual suffering permanent injury to property by virtue of a town dredging improperly fill material and depositing it onto his property (cutting off his water frontage and access) could recover damages for loss of “usable value” in addition to diminution in market value.
In Hall v. Lovell Regency Homes, the Court of Special Appeals determined that the plaintiffs could not recover both diminution in value and loss of use and enjoyment damages, based on breach of contract, caused by drainage problems left behind by their builder’s construction of the subdivision and their homes.
The type of loss that they can’t use their basements. Its [sic] the type of loss that they have a lot of tension between the spouse and the husband. They don’t enjoy their home when they walk in there and think about what the fungus might be in the basement or think about in a few months when the winter comes the water table is coming up again, that they don’t enjoy being there.
Id. Because the alleged loss of use and enjoyment was, in effect, the same as the condition that diminished the market value of their properties, the court determined that “[t]he damages the homeowners were seeking for the loss of use of their basements (and their yards) were subsumed in and were not distinguishable from the damages that they were seeking for loss in fair market value of their properties.” Id.
Although Appellees’ claims differ qualitatively from those in Hall, in that Appellees suffered injury as a result of Exxon’s tortious, rather than contractual, wrongdoing, the principle set forth in both Hall and Maxa applies to the present case. Appellees may not recover twice for the same injury. Testimony by Appellees reveals that their claims for loss of use and enjoyment revolve largely around their inability to use their well water for customary purposes and the emotional toll and stress attendant to such a disruption.
Unlike the plaintiff in Maxa, who recovered consequential damages for loss of use and enjoyment resulting from his payment for alternative boat storage charges — a defined expense caused directly by the defendant and not encompassed necessarily within the value and expected use of the home itself — the contentions here are, like in Hall, largely subsumed within the claim for diminution in market value.
3. Plaintiffs With No Detected Contamination May Not Recover Property Damages
The potable wells on the properties of approximately sixty-five Appellees or Appellee families did not test positive for either benzene or MTBE contamination as of the time of trial.
a. Trespass
Appellees contend that the mere existence of any contamination in the aquifer from which the non-detect Appellees draw their water permits the non-detect Appellees to recover damages for injury to property on a theory of tres
b. Nuisance
Exxon contends that the non-detect Appellees may not recover damages for diminution in value under a theory of nuisance because the interference with their properties is not substantial. A cause of action for nuisance does not require present proof of contamination. See Yarema,
In Exxon Corp. v. Yarema, the Court of Special Appeals considered whether property owners, who had not demonstrated any physical injury to property from contamination resulting from a gasoline leak, could recover in nuisance despite the absence of tangible or physical harm.
In order to get to the jury on their claimed cause of action in nuisance, therefore, Appellees without demonstrable contamination were obliged to establish that Exxon’s tortious actions unreasonably and substantially interfered with their use and enjoyment of their properties. In Yarema, the court determined that the property owners demonstrated a substan
Here, however, although there is no dispute that any interference with Appellees’ properties by Exxon was unreasonable, there is little to suggest that Appellees with non-detect results experienced a substantial interference. Unlike the plaintiffs in Yarema, the gravamen of Appellees’ complaints consist largely of relatively minor disturbances and stigma impacts that are not comparable to the severe restrictions placed on the Yarema plaintiffs. Although interference with the use and enjoyment of property, in the absence of physical impact, need not rise necessarily to the level of the restrictions in Yarema to constitute a nuisance, the disturbances reported in this case fall well on the opposite end of the continuum and are insufficient to maintain a nuisance action. For example, most non-detect Appellees complain primarily of using bottled water or Brita filters, entertaining in and about their homes less than expected, reducing the frequency of use of outdoor
Moreover, Appellees’ adjustments in the use of their properties appear to derive not from Exxon’s actual interference with their property, but rather from their fear of contamination and its possible impacts. In order to recover for nuisance, however, a plaintiff must establish that any adjustments he, she or it makes in the use of his, her, or its property as a result of the defendant’s tortious conduct are objectively reasonable. See, e.g., Gorman,
c. Negligence and Strict Liability
The Yarema court concluded also that no proof of physical harm to property is required to recover under a negligence or strict liability theory.
The alleged injury to the non-detect Appellees’ properties here, however, is different in kind than that suffered by the plaintiffs in Toy. In Toy, the defendant’s actions deprived the plaintiffs of substantial benefits of their property — specifically, their right of access by water and the use and enjoyment of
4. Remaining Loss of Use and Enjoyment Awards
It appears to us that only four Appellees may maintain a claim for loss of use and enjoyment of real property: Amy Gumina, Van Ho, and Leslie and Timothy Tripp. Exxon conceded that it was liable to Ms. Ho and to the Tripp family for compensatory damages, but did not specify which type of damages.
Exxon asserts that the loss of use and enjoyment awards are excessive and that the trial court should have granted its motion for a new trial and/or remittitur. We review the trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial and/or remittitur under an abuse of discretion standard. Merritt,
Compensatory damages awards “attempt to make the plaintiff whole again by monetary compensation.” Yaremu,
Although we recognize that an interest in property may be composed of a “bundle of rights” and is thus not determinate, see Weems v. County Comm’rs,
We affirm the awards for loss of use and enjoyment as to Ms. Gumina and Leslie and Timothy Tripp. The fair market value of Ms. Gumina’s unimpaired property was, as determined by Appellees’ expert, $370,000. Ms. Gumina testified that, because her water made her skin itchy and had an odor that burned her nostrils, she showered at an alternate location, avoided consumption of her well water, and changed her gardening habits. Additionally, she testified that she could no longer maintain koi fish in her pond, and that her cooking pots and bathtub began to stain. Ms. Gumina received, for her approximately fourteen months’ residency, $250,000 in compensatory damages for loss of use and enjoyment.
Similarly, Appellees’ expert determined that the unimpaired value of the Tripps’ property was $730,000. Mr. and Mrs. Tripp testified that, as a result of the gasoline leak, they used bottled water, stopped using their Jacuzzi and pool, stopped doing yardwork, showered outside for a time, and suffered from noise and odors relating to remediation activities. Mr. and Mrs. Tripp each recovered $350,000 in damages for loss of use and enjoyment, thus totaling $700,000 — $30,000 less than the unimpaired value of their home. Although Ms. Gumina and the Tripps’ compensatory damage awards approach very nearly the unimpaired market value of their respective properties, they do not violate the standards discussed above. Thus, while acknowledging that Ms. Gumina and the Tripps resided in the contaminated properties for only limited amounts of time, we do not think the awards are unsupported by the evidence, nor do they shock this Court’s conscience. Thus, we decline to substitute our judgment for that of the jury.
We determine that, in light of the evidence provided at trial, the $1.6 million loss of use and enjoyment award to Ms. Ho was too speculative and thus, denial of the request for a new trial as to Ms. Ho’s claim was an abuse of discrеtion. As noted above, awards for loss of use and enjoyment may not exceed the unimpaired market value of the property at issue. Without evidence of the pre-leak, unimpaired market value of the ongoing business of the salon operated by Ms. Ho, we cannot determine appropriately whether the jury’s award was
B. Admissibility of Testimony of Dr. Kilpatrick to Establish Diminution in Value of Real Property
Exxon contends that the trial court admitted impermissibly the testimony of Dr. John Kilpatrick, Appellees’ real property valuation expert witness. “[T]he admissibility of expert testimony is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial court and its action will seldom constitute ground for reversal.” Radman v. Harold,
As the Court of Special Appeals noted in Giant Food, Inc. v. Booker, “simply because a witness has been tendered and qualified as an expert in a particular occupation or profession, it does not follow that the expert may render an unbridled opinion, which does not otherwise comport with Md. Rule 5-702.”
Appraisаls of fair market value are the most common method of establishing the value of real property. Comparable sales are often utilized in determining fair market value, and “ha[ve] long been accepted in Maryland.” Bern-Shaw Ltd. P’ship v. Mayor & City Council of Balt.,
Dr. Kilpatrick did not discard the use of comparable sales data generally. In fact, he measured the value of plaintiffs’ properties prior to the leak using actual transactional data. He opined, however, that the post-leak value of the properties at issue could not be calculated principally using comparable sales data because of the inherent unreliability of the comparable sales data in the post-leak Jacksonville community. In trying to establish this unreliability, Dr. Kilpatrick’s report advanced a nuanced distinction between “market value” and “market price.” Specifically, Dr. Kilpatrick stated that market value represents the true value of the property where the buyer and seller possess perfect and utterly complete information. Market price, by contrast, does not necessarily reflect perfect information. Because of the possibility that the buyer may be uninformed, Dr. Kilpatrick asserts that the market price of real estate reflects an artificial inflation over the market value. Here, Dr. Kilpatrick determined that the transactional data could not be relied upon because the sales in Jacksonville represented the market price, rather than the market value, stating that “disclosure of the ExxonMobil spill, and the risks of latent defects stemming from that spill, is not occurring in a reasonable fashion. The lack of information to buyers is creating market inefficiencies and thus sales transactions that do not represent market value.”
Dr. Kilpatrick based his assessment of unreliability on informal interviews and surveys of real estate agents. These interviews, however, belie Dr. Kilpatrick’s assertions. The surveyed real estate agents noted the difficulties in closing sales in the Jacksonville real estate market subsequent to announcement of the leak. Specifically, these agents noted that some buyers stayed away from the area surrounding the spill, with buyers refusing to “even look at the house because of the spill,” or “look and then decide it’s just too much to deal with.” Other agents noted that prices were reduced dramatically in order to complete a sale; that disclosure forms were given to prospective purchasers; and in most cases, water
The statements of the real estate agents are relevant to the amount of diminution in value of properties in the Jacksonville area, but do not provide an acceptable or sufficient factual basis for Dr. Kilpatrick’s conclusion that the sales that occurred were unreliable. An expert’s opinion “is of no greater probative value than the soundness of his reasons given therefor will warrant.” Surkovich v. Doub,
JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY FOR FRAUD IN FAVOR OF ALL APPELLEES REVERSED; JUDGMENTS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF ALL APPELLEES REVERSED; JUDGMENTS FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS FOR FEAR OF CONTRACTING CANCER IN FAVOR OF ALL APPELLEES REVERSED, EXCEPT THAT THE CLAIM OF APPELLEE GLORIA QUINAN IS VACATED AND REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION; JUDGMENTS FOR MEDICAL MONITORING IN FAVOR OF ALL APPELLEES REVERSED; JUDGMENTS FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS FOR FEAR OF LOSS OF PROPERTY VALUE IN FAVOR OF ALL APPELLEES REVERSED; JUDGMENTS FOR LOSS OF USE AND ENJOYMENT IN FAVOR OF APPELLEES AMY GUMINA, LESLIE TRIPP, AND TIMOTHY TRIPP AFFIRMED; JUDGMENT FOR LOSS OF USE AND ENJOYMENT IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE VAN [¶] RE
Notes
. The 2006 gasoline leak is also the genesis of Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford,
. Exxon did not provide any direct evidence at trial that amended construction plans were submitted to Baltimore County, but maintained rather that it was its ordinary practice to update permit applications when altering design plans in the field.
. Regulations passed by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1988 established underground storage tank standards, which required station owners and operators to retrofit their stations to comply with the new regulations within a ten-year period. The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act required stations located in certain metropolitan areas, including Baltimore, to install Stage II vapor recovery systems.
. In 1987, the Jacksonville Exxon experienced a leak, which was contained successfully by the secondary containment system as constructed.
. Appellees attribute this human error to a flaw in Exxon's station design following the retrofitting construction in 1992. Specifically, they contend that, because Exxon sought to disturb the original design of the station as minimally as possible in completing the retrofit, the "regular grade” gasoline line was too close to the containment sump for the "super unleaded grade” gasoline line. Thus, when the Crompco contractor performed maintenance on the "super unleaded grade” containment sump, he was enabled to drill accidentally into the "regular grade” product line — an error that would not have occurred if the product line was located properly. Exxon admits that the "regular grade” gasoline line was located improperly too closely to the containment sump.
. The Station employed primarily two leak detection systems, in compliance with Maryland regulations. The first was a daily inventory control system, required by COMAR 26.10.04.01E-G, which consisted of daily measurements of product levels in the tanks and comparison with inventory revealed by the station operator’s delivery records, and was capable of detecting leaks both in piping and in the tanks. At the Jacksonville Exxon, this was performed by station operator Andrea Loiero of Storto Enterprises. The second was an electronic leak detection system, EECO 3000, manufactured by Emco Wheaton, which monitored leak detectors designed to identify leaks in the underground storage tank systems and generate alarms in the event of a positive detection. The automatic line leak detector feature measured pressure levels in the piping system, and could indicate leaks through two types of tests: (1) a precision test designed to detect leaks as small as one-tenth of a gallon per hour, pursuant to COMAR 26.10.05.02D(2)(b); and (2) an "hourly test,” run after each dispensing cycle after the pump motor was turned off, designed to detect leaks as small as three gallons per hour, pursuant to COMAR 26.10.05.02D(2)(a).
. Exxon contracted with Gilbarco Veeder-Root ("Gilbarco”), a remote monitoring service located in North Carolina. In the event of a failed test by the EECO system, Gilbarco received notice of the alarm and, if the alarm could not be cleared remotely, would notify Exxon's designated Managed Maintenance Service Manager, Integrated Process Tech
. An alarm indicated a catastrophic line failure when the EECO 3000’s hourly test detected a leak measuring five gallons or more per hour.
. The sign was removed, due to its inaccuracy, following a meeting on 21 February 2006 between Exxon representatives, government officials, and residents of the Jacksonville community.
. Appellees contended at trial that Exxon and the MDE adopted an oversimplified explanation of the hydrogeology of Jacksonville in order to justify the “strike line” theory, and that Exxon avoided investigating the vertical migration of the contamination.
. Under the Consent Decree, Exxon agreed to pay a $4 million civil penalty to the MDE, comply fully with the Interim Remedial Measures Plan approved by the MDE, develop and follow a Corrective Action Plan subject to the MDE's approval, and submit quarterly progress reports to the MDE including sampling data and volume of treated groundwater, among other things.
. POET systems, or point of entry treatment systems, remove gasoline contamination from potable wells before the water is used by the occupants of the dwelling or users of a business.
. The action was filed initially with 119 plaintiffs and styled as Allison v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Case No. 03-C-07-003809. Five additional actions, also filed on 5 April 2007, were consolidated under the Allison caption by order dated 12 May 2008.
. Appellees named initially, in addition to Exxon, the following defendants: Storto Enterprises; the Veeder Root Company; Gilbarco Veeder-Root; Crompco, LLC; Crompco Corporation; Alger Electric, Inc.; BP America, Inc.; BP Products North America Inc.; Phoenix BP; and The Carroll Independent Fuel Company. Claims against all other defendants were dismissed, however, and Exxon remained the sole defendant at trial.
. Appellees' Fifth and Sixth Amended Complaints, as well as their Motion for Leave of Court to Amend to Add Plaintiffs to the Proposed Seventh Amended Complaint, were stricken by the first judge assigned specially to try the case, Judge Susan Souder, on 9 June 2009 as a violation of the Scheduling Order. An Eighth Amended Complaint was struck by Judge Souder on 23 August 2010. Although Judge Souder struck Appellees’ Motion for Leave of Court to Amend to Add Plaintiffs to the Proposed Seventh Amended Complaint, nothing in the record indicates that she struck the Seventh Amended Complaint.
. Exxon filed multiple motions for partial summary judgment on 18 June 2010. Judge Souder granted Exxon's motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims for emotional distress as to certain plaintiffs, but denied it as to others. She also granted Exxon’s motion for partial summary judgment as to claims for fear of contracting cancer.
Judge Souder denied Exxon’s motions for partial summary judgment as to the following claims: medical monitoring, prospective loss of use and enjoyment, fraud, and liability for punitive damages based on allegations of evil motive, ill will, or intent to injure. Judge Souder required Appellees to elect between pursuit of damages for diminution in value of real property and prospective loss of use and enjoyment of their properties in an order dated 23 August 2010, and also ordered that Exxon’s use of MTBE ("methyl tertiary-butyl ether,” a chemical additive to vehicular motor fuel) in gasoline and its remediation efforts could not provide a basis for the fraud claims.
. Following his assignment to try the case, Judge Robert N. Dugan, on 14 October 2010, reversed Judge Souder’s Order granting partial summary judgment as to fear of cancer. On 19 October, Judge Dugan reversed Judge Souder's order stating that Exxon’s use of MTBE in gasoline and its remediation efforts could not provide a basis for fraud.
. Exxon contends that, of the instances submitted to the jury on the special verdict sheets, two should not have been submitted to the jury because they were not pleaded in any operative complaint. Specifically, an allegation of a 1992 permit fraud was pleaded only in Appellees’ Eighth Amended Complaint, which was stricken by Judge Souder on 23 August 2010 (a ruling not reversed by Judge Dugan), and a claim regarding double-walled piping was never pleaded, and raised for the first time only at trial.
Further, Exxon argues, it was unclear throughout trial what were the specific bases and arguments in support of Appellees' fraud claims. For example, although Appellees characterized at times their fraud claims as a single overarching fraudulent scheme, and thus only one count of fraud, the special verdict sheets submitted to the jury appeared to contain reference to six separate incidents of fraud, but did not require the jury to allocate any compensatory or punitive awards among the various frauds (or other torts) alleged. Moreover, in closing arguments on 13 June 2011, counsel for Appellees stated that they had "established in this case six fraud claims by clear and convincing evidence.”
. Appellees argue that the secondary containment system, as installed, was less comprehensive than that proposed by Anderson in 1983, and part of a concerted corporate plot to deceive state and local authorities and cut regulatory corners. By contrast, Exxon contends that the сontainment system as installed was not only superior, more costly, and incorporated newer technology than that proposed by Anderson in 1983, but also that its features as installed were well-known to the County.
. The double-walled piping allegations are based on a "Notification for Underground Storage Tanks” form filed with the MDE in April 2001 by Exxon, which stated incorrectly that the Jacksonville Exxon station
. Appellees’ claim appears to include not only the alleged manipulation of the MDE by Exxon regarding locations of monitoring wells, amount of gasoline recovered, and migration of contamination, but also an alleged awareness by Exxon of the leak prior to notifying the MDE. This allegation appears to be precipitated by a 14 February 2006 visit to the Jacksonville Exxon by employee Brian Shedd of Kleinfelder, Inc., (a company which later played an active role in remediation efforts). It is undisputed that Shedd visited the Jacksonville Exxon on that date to determine whether a soil vapor extraction system was appropriate for that site. Appellees contended that, because soil vapor extraction technology is used to assist in cleaning up gasoline leaks, Shedd’s visit constituted evidence of Exxon's knowledge at that time. By contrast, Exxon posited that Shedd’s visit was merely part of an ongoing company policy to examine each Maryland Exxon site to determine suitability for soil vapor extraction technologies. Counsel for Exxon indicated in a post-trial motions hearing on 11 October 2011 that Shedd visited three Exxon stations in Maryland, including the Jacksonville Exxon, for this purpose on 14 February 2006. Shedd did not testify at trial.
. Benzene is a constituent of gasoline and a known human carcinogen. Both the EPA and the MDE have promulgated drinking water standards indicating that benzene contamination in drinking water may not exceed five parts per billion. See 40 C.F.R. § 141.61; COMAR 26.04.01.07(D).
. Although MTBE was first used in 1979, it was added to some gasoline in higher concentrations following the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act to fulfill oxygenate requirements, help gasoline burn more cleanly, and reduce tailpipe emissions.
. The EPA classifies formaldehyde as a “probable human carcinogen." United States Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System: Formaldehyde, available at www.epa.gov/iris/subst. 0419.htm (last visited 5 February 2013). At trial, Exxon’s expert, Dr.
. A mutagen is "an agent (as mustard gas or various radiations) that tends to increase the frequency or extent of mutation.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 768 (10th ed. 1993). In the present case, it refers to a chemical agent that operates at an intra-cellular level.
. Benzene was detected at the following Appellees’ properties: Ensor family; James and Mary Kelly family; Over family; Rusinko family; Yen family; Dogwood Management, LLC; Klein Family Development Corp.; Klein’s of Jacksonville; 3313 Paper Mill Road, LLC; Jarrettsville Retail, LLC; and, Van Ho (Elegant Hair & Nails). Five of these properties were located within the strike line zone (northeast and southwest of the station). The remainder were located outside of the strike line zone, but within an approximately half-mile radius of the Jacksonville Exxon station.
. MTBE is not regulated presently by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA”) under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Both the
. Apрellees initially pursued damages for both diminution in value and prospective loss of use and enjoyment, but were required to elect between the two theories of recovery prior to trial. Appellees elected to pursue damages for permanent diminution in value measured as of the day the leak was discovered, as well as damages for past loss of use and enjoyment, measured between the date the leak was discovered and the date trial began.
. Many Appellees’ properties had not received positive detection well tests at the time of trial. Rather, their claims relied on expert testimony provided by Dr. Caroline Loop and Dr. Richard Spruill, who opined that it was "possible” or "probable” that Appellees’ properties would experience contamination at some point during the next thirty years.
. The jury adopted ultimately the view of Dr. Kilpatrick, awarding compensatory damages to each property owner amounting to sixty percent of the pre-leak value of his, her, or its property.
. For some Appellees, Exxon admitted causation and liability for some compensatory damages, while preserving its arguments as to the type and amount of damages that may be awarded. Specifically, Exxon admitted that it caused the following Appellees to suffer compensatory damages of some type as a result of the Jacksonville Exxon gasoline leak: Allison family; Craig family; DiPino family; Ensor family; Hairston family; Van Ho; James and Mary Kelly family; Larrabee family; Lindenmeyer family; Munson family; Odend’hal family; Puller family; Rebold family; Riegger family; Rusinko family; Sheeler family; Stehman family; Sullivan family; Trader family; Tripp family; Vuong family; Welms family; Yen family; Lenore Zaccari; 14237 Jarrettsville Pike, LLC; 14231 Jarrettsville Pike, LLC; 3313 Paper Mill Road, LLC; 3422 Sweet Air Road, LLC; and Dogwood Management, LLC.
. Following Exxon's notice of appeal, proceedings continued in the trial court. On 17 November 2011, Judge Dugan issued an opinion explaining his reasons for denying generally Exxon’s request to set aside or reduce the punitive damages award. Judge Dugan reduced the punitive damages awards for five plaintiffs, as set forth in an order dated 16 May 2012. The trial court proceeded to resolve various ambiguities and errors with regard to specific plaintiffs and the verdict sheets, with the final judgment entered on 14 June 2012.
. Because the case is before this Court on bypass of the Court of Special Appeals by virtue of our granting Appellees' petition for certiorari pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-302(a), we stand in the shoes of the Court of Special Appeals. See Md. R. 8—131 (b)(2). Thus, although the
. In its brief, Exxon posited the following questions:
(1) May verdicts for fraud be upheld (a) when based on claims not found in the operative complaint or defined for the jury; and (b) absent clear and convincing evidence that Defendant made a knowingly false representation to the Plaintiff, intending to deceive the Plaintiff, and resulting in reliance by and damage to the Plaintiff?
(2) May punitive damage verdicts be upheld when it is impossible to determine what, if any, compensatory damages were awarded for fraud, or what punitive damages were awarded on any of the six frauds, and where the punitive damage instructions did not advise the jury of all of the relevant factors it should consider?
(3) Did the trial court commit reversible error in admitting highly prejudicial, emotional lay opinion regarding cancer and other illnesses that was not supported by expert testimony and contradicted by the admissions of Plaintiffs’ counsel?
(4) Did the trial court commit reversible error in allowing recovery for emotional distress damages for fear of contracting cancer recoverable in the absence of proof of exposure or proof that future disease is more likely than not to occur, and by failing to instruct the jury that such proof was required?
(5) Does Maryland law permit recovery of medical monitoring damages and, if so, should recovery be permitted where (a) no Plaintiff claimed to have any current disease caused by MTBE; (b) no Plaintiff has a significantly increased risk of disease; and (c) many Plaintiffs were not exposed to MTBE?
(6) Were the property damage awards speculative, duplicative, grossly excessive and contrary to Maryland law?
(7) If punitive damages were permitted, were the punitive damage awards impermissibly excessive?
In their petition for certiorari, Appellees framed the following questions for review:
(1) Whether, in an action for fraud, evidence of the Defendant’s deceitful representations to the government, made with the intent of influencing government action, and relied upon by it to the Plaintiffs’ detriment, satisfies the requirement that Plaintiffs prove reliance?
(2) Whether, in an action involving the release of 26,000 gallons of gasoline into the aquifer which is the Plaintiffs' sole source of potable water, where expert testimony has established the Plaintiffs' resulting exposure to a genotoxic substance for which there is no safe level, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for fear of cancer and medical monitoring?
*332 (3) Whether, in an action for property damage, evidence that the Defendant released 26,000 gallons of gasoline into the aquifer that serves as the Plaintiffs’ sole source of potable water is sufficient to establish the Defendant's liability for an invasion of the Plaintiffs’ land?
. Moreover, even assuming that reliance by Baltimore County or the MDE alone was sufficient to support Appellees’ cause of action for fraud, we are not convinced that Appellees proved by clear and convincing evidence reliance by the governmental entities. Rather, Appel
. Appellees also rely on State v. Fox,
. Upon our review of Appellees' testimony, it appears that only the following Appellees demonstrated arguably reliance on the sign: Susan Allison; Margaret Brown; John Wright; Clever Fonseca; Denise Fonseca; James Kelly; Mary Kelly; Stephanie Kelly; Jennifer Riegger; Julia Riegger; KatieRose Riegger; Meghen Riegger; Anna Walega; and, Nancy Williams.
. Many Appellees who received verdicts for remediation fraud did not offer any testimony in support of their assertions, including most of the minor and adult children occupants of residences. Because fraud requires proof of reliance on an individual basis, the trial court should not have permitted the claim for remediation fraud for these Appellees to go to the jury, absent the presentation of testimony regarding their fraud claims offered by them or on their behalf. See, e.g., Agniezska
In addition to these Appellees, the following Appellees did not present any testimony supporting remediation fraud by any owner or occupier of the relevant premises, but recovered verdicts and punitive damages for fraud nonetheless: Edgar Argo, through personal representative Marlene Argo (did not seek recovery for fraud); Dana Rhyne Dieter; Patricia Dieter; Alissa Dutrow; Daryl Dutrow; Emily Dutrow; Jennifer Dutrow; Anthony Frattarola; Marianne Frattarola; Victoria Frattarola; Eugene Freeman; Pearlie Freeman; Katherine King, through personal representative Paul King; Kathleen Oursler; Rodger Oursler; Bessie Over, through personal representative Nancy Lee Over Webster; Christy Shaw; Thomas Shaw; Amy Vuong; Kiystal Vuong; Man A. Vuong; Shuzhen Wu (Vuong); Sinh Vuong; Stacy Vuong; Chen-Yu Yen (regarding remediation fraud due to false statements made by MDE); Ray-Whey Yen (regarding remediation fraud due to false statements made by MDE); Christopher Zaccari; Patricia Zaccari; Lenore Zaccari; Dogwood Management, LLC; Klein Family Development Corp.; Klein’s of Jacksonville, Inc.; 14342 Jarrettsville Pike, LLC; 3313 Paper Mill Road, LLC; Jarrettsville Retail, LLC; 14231 Jarretts
We therefore reverse the verdicts for remediation fraud for these Appellees.
. See, e.g., Phillip Diedeman; Susan Diedeman; Laura Hartman; Michael Hartman; Cheryl Howells; Almarie Ianuly; Paul Ianuly; Charles Parker; Kimberly Parker; Joseph Pietropaoli; Anna Popomaronis; Cynthia Popomaronis; Eleni Popomaronis; Peter Vailas (Popomaronis); Thomas Popomaronis; William Popomaronis; Joseph Schmitz; David Vaughan; Terri Vaughan; David Vosvick; Deedra Vosvick; Anna Walega; and, John Walega.
. See, e.g., Annette Armstrong; John Armstrong; Ryan Backus; Shelly Backus; Patricia Bateman; Jon Blum; Tracey Blum; Florence Brock; Keith Brock; Ellen Brookhart; Margaret Brown; Adriane Burke; Karen Buscemi; Frederick Craig; Rosina Craig; Bruce Elliott; Ellison Ensor; Sarah Ensor; Gina DiPino; Paul DiPino, Jr.; Tracy Federico; Edward Fletcher; Regina Fletcher; Thomas Gillespie, Jr.; Curtis Glatfelter; Alicia Grogan; David Grogan; Mary Pat Goodhues; Jeanette Hairston; Walter Hairston; Virginia Hannibal; Rebecca Heyman-Magaziner; John Higgins; Mary Higgins; Dorothy Hyman; Richard Hyman; Kenneth Kelly; Stephanie Kelly; Kimberly Kobus; Thomas Kobus; Ellen Koemer (through Gloria Quinan); Henry Koerner (through Gloria Quinan); Barbara Larrabee; John Larrabee; Mitchell Larrabee; William Larrabee; Donna Lawrence; Lelah Mahoney; Patrick Mahoney; Christopher Makowy; Heather Meldron (Makowy); Kim Makowy; Rebecca Meldron (Makowy); William Makowy; Alexander Makris; Eleni Makris; Nikolaos Makris; Valerie Makris; Brian Mangione; Justine Mangione; John Matra; Maiy Matra; Eric Munson; Georgia Munson; Jeffrey Munson; Leslie Munson; John Murphy; Christian O’Brien; Christopher O'Brien; Shelby O'Brien; Edward Odend’hal; Nanette Odend'hal; Betty Over; Sylvester Over; Emily Pagani; Nicholas Pagani; Rebecca Pagani; Steven Pagani; Charles Parker; Kimberly Parker; Joseph Pietropaoli; Anna Popomaronis; Cynthia Popomaronis; Eleni Popomaronis; Peter Vailas (Popomaronis); Thomas Popomaronis; William Popomaronis; Mary Prime; William Prime; Casey Proefrock; Kate Proefrock; John Proefrock; Mary Kathryn Proefrock; Megan Proefrock; Scott Proefrock; Gloria Quinan; Granville Quinan; Jerome Rebold; Rochelle Roth; Steven Roth; Alan Saeva; Ellaine Saeva; Alexander Scheetz; Arden Scheetz; Michele Scheetz; Ricky Scheetz; Charlotte Slaughter; Diann Kohute (Slaugh
. See, e.g., Susan Allison; David Austin; Emily Austin; Tracey Blum; Margaret Brown; Adriane Burke; Ronald Bueche; Carlo Capizzi; Franca Capizzi; Philip Capron; Susan Capron; Philip Carbone; Joan Clark; Lloyd Clark; Michael Cole; Frederick Craig; Rosina Craig; Phillip Diedeman; Susan Diedeman; Gina DiPino; Paul DiPino, Jr.; Sharon Dorsch; William Dorsch; Robert Dyer; Teresa Dyer; Christopher Easton; Monique Easton; Edward Fletcher; Regina Fletcher; Franklin Fontanazza; Gina Fontanazza; Alexandra Freas; James Freas; Kathleen Freas; Paul Freas; Thomas Gillespie, Jr.; Charlene Glatfelter; George Gribble; Alicia Grogan; David Grogan; Walter Hairston; Joan Hanst; John Hanst; Laura Hartman; Michael Hartman; Brendan Huey; Heather Huey; Michael Huey; Shannon Huey; James Kelly; Mary Kelly; Mark Kirkwood; Nancy Pugliese Kirkwood; Dale Knapp; James Knapp; Kimberly Kobus; Thomas Kobus; Barbara Larrabee; John Larrabee; Mitchell Larrabee; William Larrabee; Robert Lazzaro; Susan Lazzaro; Karen Lindenmeyer; Mark Lindenmeyer; Lelah Mahoney; Patrick Mahoney; Carol Malstrom; William Malstrom; Brian Mangione; Justine Mangione; Ian Marsico; Jodi Marsico; Kaitlin Marsico; Michael Marsico; Denise Moss; Gregory Naylor; Susan Naylor; Alexandra Nemer; Emanuel Nemer; Donald Nemer; Kelli Nemer; Edward Odend'hal; Nanette Odend'hal; Emily Pagani; Nicholas Pagani; Rebecca Pagani; Steven Pagani; David Palmer; Kimberly Palmer; Cathy Gay-Peters; Marcus Peters; Andrew Podles; Anita Podles; Claire Podles; John Podles; Thomas Podles; Thomas Podles, Jr.; Amy Gumina (Prime-Gumina); Biynn Puller; John Puller; Patricia Puller; Richard Puller; Gloria Quinan; Granville Quinan; Charles Riegger; Julia Riegger; Rochelle Roth; Steven Roth; Paul Rudell; Barbara Rusinko; John Rusinko; Alexander Scheetz; Arden Scheetz; Michele Scheetz; Ricky Scheetz; Joseph Schmitz; Susan Seeiy; Thomas Seery; Ernest Sessa; Paula Sessa; Barbara Sheeler; Donald Sheeler; Natalie Shields; Alyssa Stehman; John Stehman; Jonathan Stehman; Marina Stehman; Sierra Stehman; Theresa Stehman; Bruce Stumpp; Norma Stumpp; Alicia Sullivan; Brendan Sullivan, Jr.; Brendan Sullivan; Emily Sullivan; Leslie Tripp; Timothy Tripp; Martin Wachter; Christy Whaley; Neil Whaley; Hans Wilhelm-sen; Kristen Wilhelmsen; Jean Wimmer; Paul Wimmer; Janet Win-field; Timothy Winfield; Andrea Zachary; and, Mary Lefell (Zachary).
. See, e.g., Richard Andrews; Margaret Brown; Bari Jo Burnett; John Wright (Bull/Wright); Ellen Brookhart; Ronald Brookhart; Carlo Capizzi; Franca Capizzi; Robert Dyer; Teresa Dyer; Carl Eisgruber; Lynn Eisgruber; Clever Fonseca; Denise Fonseca; Alexandra Freas; James Freas; Kathleen Freas; Paul Freas; Ann Fuller; Stanley Fuller; Thomas Gillespie, Jr.; George Gribble; Virginia Hannibal; Jeffrey Hummel; Dorothy Hyman; Richard Hyman; James Kelly; Maty Kelly; Kenneth Kelly; Stephanie Kelly; Leonard Kennedy; Margaret Kennedy; Mark Kirkwood; Nancy Pugliese Kirkwood; Robert Lazzaro; Susan Lazzaro; Karen Lindenmeyer; Mark Lindenmeyer; Lelah Mahoney; Patrick Mahoney; Christopher Makowy; Heather Meldron (Makowy); Kim Makowy; Rebecca Meldron (Makowy); William Makowy; Eric Mun-son; Georgia Munson; Jeffrey Munson; Leslie Munson; John Murphy; Gregory Naylor; Susan Naylor; Kathleen Naughton; Tim Naughton; Alexandra Nemer; Emanuel Nemer; Donald Nemer; Kelli Nemer; Betty Over; Sylvester Over; Anna Popomaronis; Cynthia Popomaronis; Eleni Popomaronis; Peter Vailas (Popomaronis); Thomas Popomaronis; William Popomaronis; Amy Gumina (PrimeGumina); Casey Proefrock; Kate Proefrock; John Proefrock; Mary Kathryn Proefrock; Megan Proefrock; Scott Proefrock; Jerome Rebold; Barbara Rusinko; John Rusinko; Alan Saeva; Ellaine Saeva; Alexander Scheetz; Arden Scheetz; Michele Scheetz; Ricky Scheetz; Joseph Schmitz; Natalie Shields; Amanda Sutor; Austin Sutor; David Sutor; Lynn Sutor; Maty Trader; Patrick Rudolph (Trader); Christopher Tsakalos; Nicholas Tsakalos; Triantafilia Tsakalos; Ernest Viscuso; Francesca Viscuso; Gabrielle Viscuso; Lisa Viscuso; Nicole Viscuso; Martin Wachter; Lindsey Williams; Nancy Williams; Owen Williams; Thomas Williams; Janet Winfield; Timothy Winfield; Andrea Zachary; Mary Lefell (Zachary); Dogwood Management, LLC; and, Van Ho, Elegant Nails & Hair.
. See, e.g., Richard Andrews; Ryan Backus; Shelly Backus; Christopher Easton; Clever Fonseca; Denise Fonseca; Alicia Grogan; David Grogan; Edward Odend'hal; Nanette Odend’hal; Joseph Schmitz; Charlotte Slaughter; Diann Kohute (Slaughter); Emily Slaughter; Nancy Slaughter; William Slaughter, Jr.; William Slaughter; Martin Wachter; and, Van Ho, Elegant Nails & Hair.
. See, e.g., Susan Allison; David Austin; Emily Austin; Patricia Bate-man; Jon Blum; Tracey Blum; Margaret Brown; John Wright (Bull/ Wright); Adriane Burke; Bari Jo Burnett; Carlo Capizzi; Franca Capizzi; Philip Capron; Susan Capron; Joan Clark; Lloyd Clark; Sharon Dorsch; William Dorsch; Christopher Easton; Monique Easton; Bruce Elliott; Tracy Federico; Clever Fonseca; Denise Fonseca; Ann Fuller; Stanley Fuller; Mary Pat Goodhues; Connor Hartman; Gavin Hartman; Laura Hartman; Michael Hartman; Cheryl Howells; Brendan Huey; Heather Huey; Michael Huey; Shannon Huey; Dorothy Hyman; Richard Hyman; Kenneth Kelly; Stephanie Kelly; Leonard Kennedy; Margaret Kennedy; Mark Kirkwood; Nancy Pugliese Kirkwood; Ellen Koerner (through Gloria Quinan); Henry Koerner (through Gloria Quinan); Donna Lawrence; Jennifer Lazzaro; Robert Lazzaro; Susan Lazzaro; Alexander Makris; Eleni Makris; Nikolaos Makris; Valerie Makris; John Matra; Mary Matra; Kelly McCleary; Kirk McCleary; Mary McCleary; Pamela Morgan; Ronald Morgan; Denise Moss; Kathleen Naughton; Tim Naughton; Gregory Naylor; Susan Naylor; Alexandra Nemer; Emanuel Nemer; Donald Nemer; Kelli Nemer; Joanne O’Connell; Andrew Podles; Anita Podles; Claire Podles; John Podles; Thomas Podles; Thomas Podles, Jr.; Anna Popomaronis; Cynthia Popomaronis; Eleni Popomaronis; Peter Vailas (Popomaronis); Thomas Popomaronis; William Popomaronis; Casey Proefrock; Kate Proefrock; John Proefrock; Mary Kathryn Proefrock; Megan Proefrock; Scott Proefrock; Jeff Reckseit; Edna Rudell; Paul Rudell; Richard Rudell (no potable water on property); Alan Saeva; Ellaine Saeva; Joseph Schmitz; Ernest Sessa; Paula Sessa; Natalie Shields; Alyssa Stehman; John Stehman; Jonathan Stehman; Marina Stehman; Sierra Stehman; Theresa Stehman; Bruce Stumpp; Norma Stumpp; Chester Tokarski; Marilyn Tokarski; Ernest Viscuso; Francesca Viscuso; Gabrielle Viscuso; Lisa Viscuso; Nicole Viscuso; David Vosvick; Deedra Vosvick; Nancy Welms; Christy Whaley; Neil Wha
. See, e.g., Richard Andrews; Annette Armstrong; John Armstrong; Ryan Backus; Shelly Backus; Ellen Brookhart; Ronald Brookhart; Ronald Bueche; Florence Brock; Keith Brock; Karen Buscemi; Philip Carbone; Michael Cole; Frederick Craig; Rosina Craig; Phillip Diedeman; Susan Diedeman; Gina DiPino; Paul DiPino, Jr.; Robert Dyer; Teresa Dyer; Carl Eisgruber; Lynn Eisgruber; Ellison Ensor; Sarаh Ensor; Edward Fletcher; Regina Fletcher; Franklin Fontanazza; Gina Fontanazza; Alexandra Freas; James Freas; Kathleen Freas; Paul Freas; Thomas Gillespie, Jr.; Charlene Glatfelter; Curtis Glatfelter; George Gribble; Alicia Grogan; David Grogan; Virginia Hannibal; Joan Hanst; John Hanst; Rebecca Heyman-Magaziner; John Higgins; Mary Higgins; Jeffrey Hummel; Almarie Ianuly; Paul Ianuly; James Kelly; Mary Kelly; Dale Knapp; James Knapp; Kimberly Kobus; Thomas Kobus; Ellen Koerner; Henry Koerner; Robert Lazzaro; Susan Lazzaro; Karen Lindenmeyer; Mark Lindenmeyer; Lelah Mahoney; Patrick Mahoney; Christopher Makowy; Heather Meldron (Makowy); Kim Makowy; Rebecca Meldron (Makowy); William Makowy; Makris family; Carol Malstrom; William Malstrom; Brian Mangione; Justine Mangione; Ian Marsico; Jodi Marsico; Kaitlin Marsico; Michael Marsico; Eric Munson; Georgia Munson; Jeffrey Munson; Leslie Munson; John Murphy; Christian O’Brien; Christopher O’Brien; Shelby O'Brien; Betty Over; Sylvester Over; Emily Pagani; Nicholas Pagani; Rebecca Pagani; Steven Pagani; David Palmer; Kimberly Palmer; Charles Parker; Kimberly Parker; Cathy Gay-Peters; Marcus Peters; Joseph Pietropaoli; Andrew Podles; Anita Podles; Claire Podles; John Podles; Thomas Podles; Thomas Podles, Jr.; Anna Popomaronis; Cynthia Popomaronis; Eleni Popomaronis; Peter Vailas (Popomaronis); Thomas Popomaronis; William Popomaronis; Mary Prime; William Prime; Brynn Puller; John Puller; Patricia Puller; Richard Puller; Jerome Rebold; Charles Riegger; Julia Riegger; Rochelle Roth; Steven Roth; Richard Rudell; Barbara Rusinko; John Rusinko; Alexander Scheetz; Arden Scheetz; Michele Scheetz; Ricky Scheetz; Joseph Schmitz; Alfred Schober; Susan Seety; Thomas Seery; Barbara Sheeler; Donald Sheeler; Simanski family; Charlotte Slaughter; Diann Kohute (Slaughter); Emily Slaughter; Kaitlyn Jones (Slaughter); Nancy Slaughter; William Slaughter, Jr.; William Slaughter; Alicia Sullivan; Brendan Sullivan, Jr.; Brendan Sullivan; Emily Sullivan; Amanda Sutor; Austin Sutor; David Sutor; Lynn Sutor; Maty Trader; Patrick Rudolph (Trader); Leslie Tripp; Timothy Tripp; Christopher Tsakalos; Nicholas Tsakalos; Triantafilia Tsakalos; David Vaughan; Terri Vaughan; David Vosvick; Deedra Vosvick; Martin Wachter; Dolores Whitehurst; Gertrude McNichoIas (Whitehurst); Lindsey Williams; Nancy Williams; Owen Williams; Thomas Williams;
. See, e.g., Michael Marsico and Jerome Rebold.
. In Green, over a period of nearly eight months, the defendants conducted blasting operations in the vicinity of the plaintiff's home, hurling large stones on the plaintiff's property that broke the roof, windows, other glass, and doors of the house. The plaintiff sought damages for mental distress caused by the defendants’ negligent operations. The evidence showed that the defendants’ negligent conduct caused the plaintiff to fear for her life, drove her frequently to take refuge in the cellar, and to suffer frequent and violent vibrations. This Court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff suffered a physical injury as a proximate result of the fright she suffered because of the defendants' negligence, even though the plaintiff was not struck by the hurled stones.
. In Beynon, the survivors of the decedent's estate filed actions against a cable company, as well as others, for wrongful death and survivor-ship, claiming that defendants were negligent and were liable jointly and severally for the car accident that killed the decedent. We held that a decedent’s estate may recover for emotional distress and mental anguish where a decedent experiences undoubtedly "great fear and apprehension of imminent death before the fatal physical impact,” as long as the distress is capable of objective determination. Id. at 464,
. Recovery for damages for fear of cancer differs from the cause of action of a claim for enhanced or increased risk of disease. Fear of cancer is contemporaneous, but the risk of developing future disease necessitates speculation. See Day v. NLO,
. In Faya, an oncological surgeon performed operations on two patients knowing that he had the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), but did not inform his patients of his condition.
. In Devlin, an asbestos-related case, the court held that recovery for reasonable and reliable fear of cancer was permitted if (1) the plaintiff suffers currently from "serious fear or emotional distress or a clinically diagnosed phobia of cancer;” (2) the “fear was proximately caused by exposure to asbestos;” (3) the plaintiff’s "fear of getting cancer due to their exposure to asbestos is reasonable;” and (4) the defendants "are legally responsible for plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos.” Id. at 499. If
. In Bowman, the defendant operated negligently a truck and crashed into the plaintiffs house. Prior to the crash, the plaintiff saw the truck coming toward his house and feared that his son, who was in the basement, was in danger. As a result, the plaintiff experienced a nervous shock when the defendant crashed into the foundation of his house, and he fell to the floor. For several weeks thereafter the plaintiff was bed-ridden and was unable to work for six months. The plaintiff experienced no physical injury or impact from the truck. Id. at 398-99,
. The plaintiff in Vance, Muriel Vance, obtained damages for emotional distress arising from negligent misrepresentations made by Dr. Vance, the person whom she believed for 18 years was her husband, but had never divorced his first wife before marrying Muriel.
. Specifically, the evidence of the objectively demonstrable physical injury in Belcher showed that, after a three-ton beam (under the control of the defendant) crashed into the plaintiff’s office and landed near the plaintiff's work desk, the plaintiff’s employer sought trauma counseling for the plaintiff as a result of the plaintiff's fright and nervous condition subsequent to the crash. Id. at 713,
[The plaintiff] was frozen in fear, did not know what had happened and wondered if it had been a bomb. She was quite shaken. She seemed to have had some amnesia for the next several hours but was told that she was shaking, chain smoking and holding onto the walls. She was, at that point, quite cold and may have been in shock. Concrete pieces were all over her bodice. There are still some nuggets present on her desk.... Headaches occur and she often has dry mouth. She is fearful of a heart attack. She feels like she may explode. She has panic attacks at work and sometimes has to leave the area.... She has had ongoing nightmares, waking up screaming several times and, in each nightmare, she herself has been killed.... She has had some weight gain, a loss of senses and, at times feels "as if she is dead”.
Id. at 713-14,
. A "subclinical” condition is one that is "not detectable or producing effects that are not detectable by the usual clinical tests,” such as cancer. Merriam-Webster Dictionary 1173 (9th ed. 1989).
. The Bailey court required a physical injury for recovery for feared disease because "mere ingestion of a toxic substance does not constitute sufficient physical harm upon which to base a claim for damages.” A plaintiff has the burden to prove some harmful result attributable to the exposure, though he or she need not prove that he or she suffers from cancer. Id.
. The court in Wolff required proof of asbestos-induced disease or presence of asbestos fibers in the plaintiff’s body.
. The following Appellees recovered damages for emotional distress for fear of cancer, but did not provide evidence of actual exposure: Agnieszka Hudzik (Allison); Eric Allison; Susan Allison; David Austin; Emily Austin; Jon Blum; Tracy Blum; Margaret Brown; John Wright (Bull/Wright property); Adriane Burke; Lloyd Burke; Bari Jo Burnett; Philip Capron; Susan Capron; Joan Clark; Lloyd Clark; Sharon Dorsch; William Dorsch; Monique Easton; Bruce Elliott; Clever Fonseca; Denise Fonseca; Ann Fuller; Maty Pat Goodhues; Laura Elartman; Michael Hartman; Cheryl Howells; Heather Huey; Michael Huey; Richard Hyman; Kenneth Kelly; Stephanie Kelly; Margaret Kennedy; Calvin Kirkwood; Chase Kirkwood; Jeremy Kirkwood; Mark Kirkwood; Nancy Pugliese Kirkwood; Tyler Kirkwood; Donna Lawrence; Kristen Lawrence; Robert Lazzaro; Susan Lazzаro; Alexander Makris; John Matra; Mary Matra; Kelly McCleary; Kirk McCleary; Mary McCleary; Denise Moss; Gregory Naylor; Susan Naylor; Donald Nemer; Kelli Nemer; Joanne O’Connell; Anita Podles; Thomas Podles; Anna Popomaronis; Cynthia Popomaronis; Eleni Bowden (Popomaronis); Thomas Popomaronis; William Popomaronis; Mary Kathryn Proefrock; Scott Proefrock; Jeff Reckseit (Wilhelmsen property); Edna Rudell; Paul Rudell; Ellaine Saeva; Joseph Schmitz; Susan Schmitz; Ernest Sessa; John Stehman; Theresa Stehman; Bruce Stumpp; Norma Stumpp; Chester Tokarski; Marilyn Tokarski; Ernest Viscuso; Lisa Viscuso; David Vosvick II; Deedra Vosvick; Man A. Vuong; Stacy Vuong; Nancy Welms; Christy Whaley; Neil Whaley; Jean Wimmer; and, Paul Wimmer.
. As to many of the Appellees, Exxon challenges whether the contaminants found in their potable wells was attributed properly to the
. At trial, Appellees’ experts testified that there is “no safe level” of MTBE, and thus any exposure to MTBE, however slight, is sufficient to justify an award of damages for fear of cancer. Without delving into the reliability of such a theory (which was not raised by Exxon on appeal), we do not believe that such testimony is sufficient to support the causation requirement set forth today. To satisfy their burden of proof, Appellees must show that any actual exposure, as well as any objective and reasonable fear they have of developing cancer, is attributable to the Exxon leak. Individuals are exposed routinely to MTBE and its metabolite of concern, formaldehyde, in everyday life. Thus, Appellees would need to show that any objectively reasonable fear, and any actual exposure, was due not to the MTBE and formaldehyde that they have been exposed to routinely, but specifically to that released by
. The EPA recommends against exposure in drinking water to MTBE at levels above 20-40 parts per billion. Because the MDE’s standard is stricter than the recommended level promulgated by the EPA, we look to the MDE’s action level for purposes of our analysis.
. The MTBE action level is described generally as an aesthetic standard, meaning a level at which contamination is detectable by unpleasant taste and smell, rather than necessarily a human safety level. The
. These Appellees are: Jeanne Andrews; Richard Andrews; Annette Armstrong; John Armstrong; Ryan Backus; Shelly Backus; Florence Brock; Ellen Brookhart; Ronald Brookhart; Sean Brookhart; Ronald Bueche; Terry Bueche; Amanda Buscemi; Charles C. Buscemi; Karen Buscemi; Mary Buscemi; Rachel Buscemi; Philip Carbone; Maria Navarro Cole; Michael Cole; Frederick Craig; Rosina Craig; Phillip Diedeman; Susan Diedeman; Dana Rhyne Dieter; Patricia Dieter; Gina DiPino; Paul DiPino, Jr.; Robert Dyer; Teresa Dyer; Carl Eisgruber; Lynn Eisgruber; Ellison Ensor; Edward Fletcher; Regina Fletcher; Franklin Fontanazza; Gia Fontanazza; Gina Fontanazza; Paul Freas; Eugene Freeman; Pearlie Freeman; Debra Gillespie; Kevin Gillespie; Tara Gillespie; Thomas Gillespie, Jr.; Charlene Glatfelter; Curtis Glatfelter; George Gribble; Marjorie Gribble; Alicia Grogan; David Grogan; Jeanette Hairston; Linda Hairston-Taulton; Walter Hairston; Virginia Hannibal; John Higgins; Patrick Higgins; Richard Higgins; Jeffrey Hummel; Almarie Ianuly; Paul Ianuly; James Kelly; Dale Knapp; James Knapp; Kimberly Kobus; Thomas Kobus; Kaitlyn Lindenmeyer; Karen Lindenmeyer; Mark Lindenmeyer; Megan Lindenmeyer; Kim Makowy; William Makowy; Carol Malstrom; William Malstrom; Brian Mangione; Justine Mangione; Jodi Marsico; Michaеl Marsico; Jeffrey Munson; Leslie Munson; John Murphy; Rosemary Murphy; Christian O'Brien; Christopher O'Brien; Kathleen Oursler; Roger Oursler; Betty Over; Sylvester Over; Rebecca Pagani; Steven
. These Appellees are: Barbara Larrabee; John Larrabee; Edward Odend’hal; Nanette Odend’hal; Amy Gumina; Gloria Quinan; Anna Walega; and, Van Ho (Elegant Nails & Hair).
Exxon contends, and presented evidence at trial supporting its assertion, that the contamination on the property owned by Anna and John Walega is not attributable to the Jacksonville Exxon leak, but rather to an improperly abandoned underground storage tank found nearby. The jury, however, determined otherwise. Because we view the evidence in the light most favorable to these Appellees, we will not disturb the jury's conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to determine that the contamination detected on the Walega property was attributable to the Jacksonville Exxon spill.
Similarly, the property leased by Van Ho (Elegant Nails & Hair) was contaminated already at the time of the Jacksonville Exxon leak due to a prior gasoline leak in 2004 at the Four Corners Amoco/BP station, and was already equipped with a carbon filtration system. The jury, however, determined apparently that the contamination detected in March of 2006 (after the POET system malfunctioned) was attributable to the Exxon leak.
. Because we determine that Appellees have not demonstrated sufficiently on this record a causal connection between their alleged physical injuries and the Jacksonville Exxon leak, we make no determination regarding the sufficiency of Appellees’ testimony to establish physical injury.
. Mr. Dell'uomo filed a medical malpractice suit with the Medical Health Claims Arbitration Office after being misdiagnosed with prostate cancer and receiving several radiation treatments. Id. at 520,
. Quinan’s husband, Granville Quinan, also testified. He did not, however, offer any testimony regarding his wife's emotional distress.
In its brief, Exxon criticizes the testimony of Dr. Malik, noting that of the ninety-six plaintiffs for whom he performed a psychiatric evaluation, every plaintiff but one received a psychiatric diagnosis, despite Dr. Malik’s conclusion that all of the plaintiffs seen were functioning normally. Additionally, Exxon claims that Dr. Malik erred in conducting clinical examinations, rather than forensic examinations, which take into account broader sources of information (rather than relying solely on the patient). Despite these criticisms, Exxon did not raise the admission of Dr. Malik's expert testimony as an issue on appeal on grounds of reliability or methodology. We therefore presume that Dr. Malik’s testimony was admitted properly.
. Testimony regarding the rash suffered presumptively by Quinan was admitted by the trial court solely for the purpose of establishing Quinan’s state of mind. The rash may not support an award for emotional distress damages for fear of cancer on the grounds that it constitutes a physical injury resulting from the Exxon leak. Because we determine that expert medical testimony is required to establish that physical injury is related causally to fear of developing disease as a result of exposure to toxic substances, and Quinan did not present expert medical testimony supporting a claim that the rash resulted from her fear of developing cancer, Quinan’s rash may not support an award for emotional distress damages for fear of cancer on these grounds.
Exxon argues that this type of testimony, admitted as probative of the state of mind of an Appellee, should have been excluded by the trial court because the prejudicial impact of the testimony far outweighs its probative value. See Md. R. 5-403. Alternatively, Exxon contends that the trial court should have given an immediate limiting instruction to the jury, rather than waiting until the end of the trial. Because we review the trial judgе's decision to admit such evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, reversal is appropriate only "where no reasonable person would share the view taken by the trial judge.” Consol. Waste Indus., Inc. v. Std. Equip. Co.,
. The Quinan well first tested positive for MTBE contamination below the MDE action level on 16 April 2009. On 9 July 2009, a well test revealed MTBE contamination at 22 ppb, exceeding the MDE action level. The MDE installed a POET system at the Quinan property on 3 August 2009.
. Recovery of damages for medical monitoring, also known as medical surveillance, where allowed, is distinct from a cause of action for an enhanced or increased risk of disease. In theory, a plaintiff may receive damages for medical monitoring only for "quantifiable costs of periodic examinations necessary to detect the onset of physical harm, whereas an enhanced risk claim seeks compensation for the anticipated harm itself, proportionately reduced to reflect the chance that it will not occur.” Angeletti,
. In Angeletti, the plaintiffs, as class representatives, sought damages and injunctive relief against tobacco manufacturers and related entities for cancer and pulmonary disorders from smoking cigarettes, claiming violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md.Code Ann. Com. § 13-101 et seq., and damages for medical monitoring, among other claims. Angeletti,
. Moreover, "if a reasonable physician would not prescribe [medical monitoring] for a particular plaintiff because the benefits of the monitoring would be outweighed by the costs, which may include, among other things, the burdensome frequency of the monitoring procedure, its excessive price, or its risk of harm to the patient, then recovery would not be allowed.” Hansen,
. To recover for medical monitoring, the court held, the plaintiff must prove “through reliable expert testimony predicated upon the significance and extent of exposure to chemicals, the toxicity of the chemicals, the seriousness of the diseases for which individuals are at risk, the relative increase in the chance of onset of disease in those exposed, and the value of early diagnosis.’’ Id. at 312.
. The Third Circuit outlined specific elements that a plaintiff must prove to recover damages for medical monitoring: a plaintiff must show (1) that he or she "was significantly exposed to a proven hazardous substance through the negligent actions of the defendant;” (2) that, "[a]s a proximate result of exposure, plaintiff suffers a significantly increased risk of contracting a serious latent disease; ” (3) that "increased risk makes periodic diagnostic medical examinations reasonably necessary;” and (4) that "monitoring and testing procedures exist which make the early detection and treatment of the disease possible and beneficial.” Paoli I,
. These appellees are: Agnieszka Hudzik (Allison); Eric Allison; Kristen Allison; Susan Allison; David Austin; Emily Austin; Ian Austin; Reid Austin; Patricia Bateman; Alex Blum; Jon Blum; Madelyn Blum; Tracy Blum; Margaret Brown; Tara Brown; John Wright (Bull/Wright property); Adriane Burke; Lloyd Burke; Lloyd Burke, Jr.; Riley Burke; Bari Jo Burnett; Adriana Capizzi; Carlo Capizzi; Franca Capizzi; Francesca Capizzi; Julia Capizzi; Philip Capron; Susan Ca-pron; Joan Clark; Lloyd Clark; Sharon Dorsch; William Dorsch; Alissa Dutrow; Daryl Dutrow; Emily Dutrow; Jennifer Dutrow; Brian Easton; David Easton; Michael Easton; Monique Easton; Bruce Elliott; Janice Elliott; Chris Federico; Emily Federico; Grace Federico; Kevin Federico; Tracy Federico; Bruna Fonseca; Clever Fonseca; Denise Fonseca; Maira Fonseca; Tiago Fonseca; Anthony Frattarola; Marianne Frattarola; Victoria Frattarola; Ann Fuller; Stanley Fuller; Mary Pat Goodhues; Connor Hartman; Gavin Hartman; Laura Hartman; Michael Hartman; Cheryl Howells; Brendan Huey; Heather Huey; Michael Huey; Shannon Huey; Dorothy Hyman; Richard Hyman; Kenneth Kelly; Lauryn Kelly; Michele Kelly; Stephanie Kelly; Kathleen Kennedy; Leonard Kennedy; Margaret Kennedy; Calvin Kirkwood; Chase Kirkwood; Jeremy Kirkwood; Mark Kirkwood; Nancy Pugliese Kirkwood; Tyler Kirkwood; Ellen Koerner; Henry Koerner; Donna Lawrеnce; Kristen Lawrence; Jennifer Lazzaro; Robert Lazzaro; Susan Lazzaro; Alexander Makris; Eleni Makris; Nikolaos Makris; Valerie Makris; John Matra; Mary Matra; Kelly McCleary; Kirk McCleary; Mary McCleary; Ryan McCleary; Leigh Morgan; Pamela Morgan; R. Wade Morgan; Ronald Morgan; Denise Moss; Gregory Naylor; Gregory Naylor, Jr.; Kenneth Naylor; Susan Naylor; Tracy Naylor; Alexandra Nemer; Donald Nemer; Emmanuel
. These appellees are: Thomas Albright; Paula Albright; Caitlin Andrews; Daniel Andrews; Jeanne Andrews; Richard Andrews; Annette Armstrong; John Armstrong; Emily Backus; Ryan Backus; Shelly Backus; Keith Brock; Ashley Brookhart; Ellen Brookhart; Ronald Brookhart; Sean Brookhart; Victoria Brookhart; Ronald Bueche; Terry Bueche; Amanda Buscemi; Cari C. Buscemi; Charles C. Buscemi; Karen Buscemi; Mary Buscemi; Rachel Buscemi; Philip Carbone; Maria Navarro Cole; Michael Cole; Frederick Craig; Rosina Craig; Phillip Diedeman; Phillip Diedeman, Jr.; Susan Diedeman; Dana Rhyne Dieter; Patricia Dieter; Dominique DiPino; Francesca DiPino; Gina DiPino; Joseph DiPino; Paul DiPino, Jr.; Paul DiPino, III; Robert Dyer; Sarah Dyer; Teresa Dyer; Carl Eisgruber; James Turfler
. These Appellees are: Amy Gumina; Van Ho; Barbara Larrabee; John Larrаbee; Mitchell Larrabee; William Larrabee; Edward Odend’hal; Nanette Odend'hal; Gloria Quinan; Granville Quinan; Anna Walega; and, John Walega.
. Specifically, Dr. Burns testified to the following;
Q. Did you qualitatively assess the risk faced by individuals in the Jacksonville area who were exposed or being exposed to MTBE in terms of whether or not they are at increased risk of cancer?
A. Yes. '‘Qualitative” means I didn’t assign numbers to people, but I did look at where there’s going to be increased cancer risk. If somebody is exposed to MTBE or benzene, they are incurring additional risk.
Q. At what level of exposure in your professional opinion should individuals be afforded medical monitoring who have been exposed to MTBE?
A. ... You know, any level of exposure, whether it’s by dermal exposure in a shower, inhalation [sic] or ingestion imposes some risk so any level of exposure of people really requires that they be[] offered medical monitoring.”
Q. Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty as to what level of exposure to benzene puts someone at risk of developing leukemia before the nonexposed person?
A. Any level of exposure to benzene imposes some cancer risk.
. In particular, Dr. Brautbar stated:
*393 Q. Doctor, I want you to assume that there was a 26,000 gallon gasoline release at the Jacksonville Exxon from January 13th to February 13th, 2006. I want you to further assume that it is more likely than not that all of the Plaintiffs in this case have been or will be exposed to gasoline constituents, including MTBE, in the 30 years following the release. Finally, I want you to assume that the exposure as a result of that release to these individuals and Plaintiffs will be greater than that to which they would otherwise be exposed. Assuming all of those to be true, do you have an opinion based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether those Plaintiffs would have a significantly increased risk greater than the normal risk all of us encounter in our everyday lives?
Q. Do you have an opinion, Doctor?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is that opinion?
A. The opinion is that they will have an increased risk of cancer.
Q. And how would you characterize the risk, significant?
A. Significantly increased risk of cancer.
Q. What do you mean by significantly increased risk of?
A. Meaning that it is not a theoretical or rhetorical factor. It is an actual factor.
. Although this Court has not recognized previously the availability of damages for medical monitoring, we determine that, because the jury instructions given by Judge Dugan hew closely to the standards we adopt today, Judge Dugan’s exposition of law relating to medical monitoring was consistent with this opinion. Our opinion does not alter the legal standard as instructed by Judge Dugan, but merely elaborates on the sufficiency of the evidence needed to create a jury
. As noted earlier, Judge Dugan granted Exxon’s Motion for Judgment Motion for Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims for Punitive Damages based on Allegations of Evil Motive, Ill Will, or Intent to Injure. Thus, because Judge Dugan determined as a matter of law that Appellees could not establish malice or evil intent sufficient to support a finding of punitive damages, Appellees similarly may not recover emotional distress damages related to injury to real property on the basis of evil motive, ill will, or intent to injure.
. The awards being reversed are as to the following Appellees: Susan Allison; Jeanne Andrews; Richard Andrews; Annette Armstrong; John
. The parties characterize differently the loss of use and enjoyment damages awarded by the jury. Exxon refers in its brief to these awards as damages for prospective loss of enjoyment, presumably because its primary contention is that these damages were incurred prospectively from the date of valuation of property and thus are subsumed in its market value. By contrast, Appellees refer to these damages as past loss of use and enjoyment, presumably because the trial court determined that damages for prospective loss of use and enjoyment and diminution in value are duplicative. For purposes of simplicity and consistency with the trial court’s characterization of these damages, we will refer to the loss of use and enjoyment damages awarded by the jury for the period between when the harm first occurred and the commencement of trial as damages for "past loss of use and enjoyment.”
. Generally, diminution in value damages are available only where the injury to real property is permanent. Goldstein v. Potomac Elec. Power Co.,
Because damages for permanent injury to real properly are generally available only to the owners of real property, see Peters v. ContiGroup, 292 S.W.3d 380, 389 (Mo.Ct.App.2009) (noting that, because "damages for a permanent nuisance involve the diminution in value of the property!,] • • • one seeking damages for a permanent nuisance must have a property interest”); In re the Premcor Refining Grp., Inc.,
Thus, the loss of use and enjoyment awards are reversed as to the following Appellees: Agniezska Hudzik (Allison); Eric Allison; Kristen Allison; Caitlin Andrews; Daniel Andrews; Ian Austin; Reid Austin; Emily Backus; Alex Blum; Madelyn Blum; Ashley Brookhart; Sean Brookhart; Victoria Brookhart; Tara Brown; John Wright (Bull/ Wright); Amanda Buscemi; Cari Cheelsman (Buscemi); Charles Cheelsman (Buscemi); Karen Buscemi; Mary Buscemi; Rachel Busce
As explained below, Exxon admitted liability for some compensatory damages to Appellee Van Ho. Because Ms. Ho is a lessee, she did not claim, and is not entitled to recover, damages for diminution in value of the real property she leased. Because Exxon admitted liability to Ms. Ho, however, she may recover damages for loss of use and enjoyment as a lessee, and not an owner, of the real property at issue in this case. As explained below, we will reverse and direct remand for a new trial as to the loss of use and enjoyment award to Ms. Ho.
. Maryland law requires sellers of real property to disclose any latent defects of which he or she has actual knowledge. See Md.Code (1974, 2010 Repl.Vol.), Real Property Article § 10-702. As the trial court instructed the jury, "[u]nder Maryland law, a seller of real property has a duty to disclose any latent defects of which he or she has actual knowledge that a purchaser would not reasonably be expected to ascertain by a careful visual inspection and that would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of the purchaser or an occupant. The seller must disclose, among other things, any latent defects in the ‘source of household water’ and any issues related to 'hazardous materials’.”
. Indeed, Appellees who purchased their properties in the vicinity of the strike line radius subsequent to 16 February 2006 acknowledged that they knew about the leak prior to closing, yet opted to complete the sale, in some instances even signing a written statement acknowledging their knowledge of the leak.
. Thus, Appellees who purchased their homes or business properties following the announcement of the leak presumably did so at a depreciated value, and are therefore ineligible to receive damages for either diminution in value or loss of use and enjoyment. These Appellees include the Hartmans (Laura and Michael), Cheryl Howells, and the Vosvicks (Chase, David II, Deedra, and Tanner). Exxon contends that the verdicts for the Hueys, Nemers, and Proefrocks should be reversed also on these grounds. These Appellees entered into contracts to buy homes in the Jacksonville community prior to announcement of the leak, but did not go to settlement until after the discovery of the leak. We do not believe that these Appellees' awards for injury to property should be reversed simply because they did not proceed to closing until after the leak was discovered. Rather, because they entered into contracts for sale prior to discovery of the leak, they paid presumably the pre-leak, unimpaired values for their homes, and thus, barring any other grounds for reversal, would be eligible for damages for diminution in value of real property only (as explained herein).
. We assume, without deciding, that the testimony offered in support of Appellees’ claims for loss of use and enjoyment was appropriate to that purpose. As Judge James Eyler recognized in Ford, however, a plaintiff may not circumvent the prohibition against the recovery of emotional distress awards relating to property damage by cloaking his or her emotional distress claim as a claim for loss of use and enjoyment of property.
. Exxon cites Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm’n v. CAE-Link Corp.,
. Some Appellees with businesses were allocated damages for out-of-pocket expenses by the jury. It does not appear, however, that the residential Appellees claimed recovery of costs for the installation and maintenance of POET systems or the purchase of bottled water, which, provided that causation was proved sufficiently, may have been recoverable under Maxa. Although the proposed versions of the verdict sheets offered by Appellees' counsel appear to indicate the possibility that some Appellees could recover out of pocket expenses if alleged, and some Appellees testified regarding the costs of such out-of-pocket expenditures, the Appellee-specific verdict sheets sent to the jury did not provide an option for the jury to allocate damages for out-of-pocket expenses. As a result, damages were therefore not allocated thusly and it appears that no residential Appellee sought out-of-pocket expenses for POET systems and bottled water.
. These Appellee-owned properties include the following Appellee families or businesses: Allison; Austin; Bateman; Blum; Brown; Bull/ Wright; Burke; Burnett; Capizzi; Capron; Clark; Dorsch; Dutrow; Easton; Elliott; Federico; Fonseca; Frattarola; Fuller; Goodhues; Hartman; Howells; Huey; Hyman; Kenneth & Stephanie Kelly; Kennedy; King; Kirkwood/Pugliese; Koerner; Lawrence; Lazzaro; Makris; Matra; McCleary; Morgan; Moss; Naughton; Naylor; Nemer; Joanne O’Connell; Podles; Popomaronis; Proefrock; Jeff Reckseit (Wilhelmsen property); Edna Rudell; Paul Rudell; Richard Rudell; Saeva; Schmitz; Sessa; Shields; Stehman; Stumpp; Tokarski; Viscuso; Vosvick; Vuong; Welms; Whaley; Wilhelmsen (properties located
Of these Appellees, Exxon admitted liability for negligence, trespass, nuisance, and strict liability to the following: Allison, Stehman, Vuong, Welms, and 3422 Sweet Air Road, LLC. Because Exxon admitted liability to these Appellees, they are excluded from this discussion and may recover damages for diminution in value to real property, even though their properties never tested positive for contamination.
. All of the Appellees listed at supra n. 92 claimed damages for diminution in value, with the exception of the Viscuso family, who claimed damages for loss of use and enjoyment only.
. The Yarema court noted that leaking underground storage tanks could support causes of action for negligence and strict liability because
. The plaintiffs in Toy were denied recovery ultimately, however, because plaintiffs could not demonstrate that defendant failed to take reasonable care in performing the dredging operations, nor did the facts support a cause of action for strict liability. Id. at 211, 214,
. Because Exxon conceded liability to Ms. Ho and the Tripp family (while disputing expressly any fraud, fear of cancer, or medical monitoring claims), they may recover damages for loss of use and enjoyment, their sole remaining category of damages.
. Evidence produced at trial suggested that Ms. Ho paid approximately $590 per month in rent and associated costs for her salon space.
. Exxon contends that Dr. Kilpatrick’s testimony should have been disqualified under Frye-Reed, and that we should therefore apply a de novo standard of review. See Wilson,
Here, Exxon attempts to impose the strictures of Frye-Reed on the expert testimony of a real estate appraiser. Valuation of real property, however, is not the type of scientific expert opinion contemplated by the Frye-Reed test. See id. Thus, even though the trial court conducted a Frye-Reed hearing prior to accepting Dr. Kilpatrick as an expert witness, we determine that Frye-Reed does not apply here.
. Exxon did not object at trial to Dr. Kilpatrick’s valuation methods as it relates to the following Appellee commercial properties: Dogwood Management, LLC; Klein Family Development Corp.; 14342 Jarrettsville Pike, LLC; 3313 Paper Mill Road, LLC; Jarrettsville Retail, LLC; 14231 Jarrettsville Pike, LLC; 14237 Jarrettsville Pike, LLC; 3422 Sweet Air Road, LLC; and, Lenore Zaccari/Lenore Zaccari Residual Trust (property at 3411 Sweet Air Road). Exxon does not challenge specifically on appeal the diminution in value awards to these Appellees, and thus, with the exception of 14342 Jarrettsville Pike, LLC (reversed on other grounds as explained supra), those judgments are affirmed.
Exxon challenges on appeal, however, Dr. Kilpatrick's valuation of Appellee Klein's of Jacksonville ("Klein's”), which operated a grocery store on property owned by Appellee Klein Family Development Corp. at 14330 Jarrettsville Pike, and recovered damages for injury to its business based on a "forced liquidation theory.” Exxon did not object to the admission of Dr. Kilpatrick’s testimony before the trial court, but argued at trial that Dr. Kilpatrick’s testimony as to Klein’s was speculative, not supported by a factual basis, and should not be permitted to go to the jury.
Klein's opened for business in the years immediately preceding the subject gasoline leak, and remained unprofitable at the time of the leak (as was expected by Klein’s, according to Dr. Kilpatrick’s testimony). Dr. Kilpatrick testified that the proper valuation of Klein’s was its liquidation value, or what the store would be worth to a prospective purchaser. Dr. Kilpatrick’s "impaired” valuation was based on what he termed a “disorderly liquidation,” in which there is no prospective purchaser due to the undesirability of locating in the Jacksonville area. Under Dr. Kilpatrick’s theory, therefore, Klein’s would be forced to sell off its fixtures and furniture in piecemeal form to prospective purchasers from outside the Jacksonville area, thus incurring additional costs.
Exxon argues that this methodology was based on the unfounded assumption that Klein’s of Jacksonville would go out of business regardless of the existence of the leak, an assumption not supported by
. Dr. Kilpatrick’s case study methodology considered summaries of settlements or jury verdicts in seven trials that involved claimed property damage due to groundwater contamination. One of these seven trials was Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford, in which the jury was permitted to find that some of the plaintiffs’ homes were valueless. Although we recognize, assuming that the case study methodology is an appropriate valuation technique, that the data generated in Ford is likely most relevant as it concerns the same community, we do not think it appropriate to base valuation conclusions on jury awards that are not yet final because of a contemporaneously pending appeal.
. Dr. Kilpatrick testified that proximity was, in essence, the same for each and every plaintiff in this case, and thus an irrelevant factor, because every Appellees’ property sits atop the same aquifer that experienced MTBE contamination.
. Dr. Kilpatrick acknowledged the existence of the sales in his testimony, and even noted that he deemed 100 of these sales to be relevant to valuing the contaminated properties. He did not consider them, however, in calculating his impaired values. These sales reflected, as a general proposition, an approximately seven percent diminution in value.
. One lender stated that many banks "stay away from lending on property near gas stations” as a general proposition.