HERB J. CARNAHAN and BETTYE M. CARNAHAN,
Plaintiffs/Appellees,
v.
CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, INC., a Domestic for Profit
Corporation, Defendant/Appellant.
Wm. C. Hetherington, Jr., Vice-Chief Judge:
¶1 Chesapeake Operating, Inc. (Chesapeake) appeals entry of a $234,000
judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Herb J. Carnahan and Bettye M.
Carnahan (Plaintiffs) in their lawsuit alleging trespass, public nuisance, and
private nuisance arising from contamination of their land by a condensate seep
from a gas well. Chesapeake claims improper jury instruction and admission of
expert opinions over its objections based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993),
resulted in a lack evidentiary support for the judgment, requiring reversal.
Following a review of the experience and education of the challenged experts'
qualifications under relevant factors described in Daubert, we determine
the trial court did not abuse its wide discretion in admitting the experts'
testimony into evidence and there is no reversible error in the jury
instructions. The judgment entered on the jury's verdict is AFFIRMED.
FACTS
¶2 Chesapeake drilled the Bettye #1-2 Well on Plaintiffs' property in Beckham
County, Oklahoma, in May of 2007, and the well subsequently began producing gas.
In late December of 2007, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) and
Chesapeake began investigations based on Plaintiffs' report of odors indicating
a possible leak. Chesapeake hired environmental consultants and OCC sent
personnel to conduct tests at a spring and a seep on Plaintiffs' land. The
testing confirmed the presence of condensate vapors. OCC's testing did not lead
it to identify a source. In late December of 2009, Plaintiffs sued for public
and private nuisance and trespass, alleging Chesapeake's oilfield operations had
polluted and contaminated part of their ranch land and they were entitled to
punitive damages.1
¶3 According to a November 23, 2011 Joint Stipulation Precluding The
Presentation of Certain Evidence by Plaintiffs, Plaintiff Herb J. Carnahan, due
to his ill health, was not deposed, he would not offer any testimony or exhibits
at trial, and Plaintiffs' witnesses, including expert witnesses, would not rely
on any statements made by him. Plaintiffs also agreed not to offer "any
non-expert testimony or evidence on the computation or amount of any damages
sought by Plaintiffs."
¶4 A Third Amended Scheduling Order provided Plaintiffs' experts not
previously deposed were "to present material relied upon and give final opinions
by September 1, 2011," and Chesapeake's experts were to be deposed and give
final opinions by December 1, 2011. After Plaintiffs' experts were deposed,
Chesapeake filed three motions in limine, all of which raised objections under
principles set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509
U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), seeking to exclude Plaintiffs'
three experts from testifying at trial. Chesapeake also filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment As to Causation and Damages in which it argued that if the
three motions in limine were granted, then Plaintiffs' claims should fail for
lack of supporting evidence. In a separate Alternative Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, Chesapeake also claimed there was no evidence justifying
punitive damages. In an Order filed on January 23, 2012, the trial court granted
the motion for partial summary judgment regarding punitive damages and denied
Chesapeake's three motions in limine and its Motion for Summary Judgment As to
Causation and Damages.
¶5 The case proceeded to jury trial on January 31, 2012, February 1, 2012,
and February 2, 2012. Plaintiffs sought over $482,000, which they contended was
the remediation cost to clean up the natural gas condensate. Based upon the
grounds previously cited in the denied motions in limine, Chesapeake was given a
"continuing and running" objection to the opinions of Plaintiffs' experts so as
to avoid disruption of the trial.2 When Plaintiffs rested their case, Chesapeake
demurred to their evidence, arguing, inter alia, Plaintiffs had failed to
produce admissible evidence on every element of their theories for recovery and
for causation, and their experts either could not identify the accepted
scientific method relied upon for opinions or identified an accepted scientific
method but failed to follow it. The trial court overruled the demurrer and
Chesapeake presented its own evidence. After Chesapeake rested, it moved for a
directed verdict, arguing Plaintiffs had produced no admissible evidence
reasonably supporting their claims. Chesapeake contended Plaintiffs' experts
failed to present qualified, reliable, scientific, or relevant expert opinions
on causation, injury, or damages and the experts' testimony should not have been
admitted at trial. After hearing argument, the trial court overruled
Chesapeake's motion. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs and
against Chesapeake in the amount of $234,000, and judgment was entered
accordingly. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶6 "[T]he clear abuse of discretion appellate standard applies when we review
a decision on the admissibility of expert testimony." Christian v. Gray,
2003 OK 10, ¶ 42, 65 P.3d 591, 608. "An abuse of
discretion occurs when a decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or
where there is no rational basis in evidence for the ruling." Spencer v.
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company, 2007 OK 76, ¶ 13, 171 P.3d 890, 895 (Emphasis
omitted).
¶7 "[T]he sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a judgment in an action of
legal cognizance is determined by an appellate court in light of the evidence
tending to support it, together with every reasonable inference deducible
therefrom, rejecting all evidence adduced by the adverse party which conflicts
with it. Park v. Security Bank and Trust Company, [1973 OK 72, ¶ 21], 512 P.2d 113, 118 (Okla.1973)."
Florafax International, Inc. v. GTE Market Resources, Inc., 1997 OK 7, ¶ 3, 933 P.2d 282, 287.
¶8 "We must affirm a jury verdict if there is any competent evidence
reasonably tending to support it, evidence which is relevant and material to the
issue to be determined." Ellison v. Campbell, 2014 OK 15, ¶ 14, 326 P.3d 68, 73. (Emphasis and
footnotes omitted.) "A jury verdict is conclusive as to all disputed facts and
all conflicting statements, where there is any competent evidence tending to
support the jury verdict. Where a jury has tried a cause, it is the exclusive
arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses." Id. (Footnotes
omitted.)
¶9 "We review assigned errors in jury instructions to consider whether the
instructions in their entirety accurately reflect the law and whether it is
reasonably evident that the jury was mislead by an erroneous instruction."
Gilbert v. Security Finance Corporation of Oklahoma, Inc., 2006 OK 53, ¶
2, 152 P.3d 165, 171. (Footnote
omitted.) "We inquire on review whether the instructions reflect the Oklahoma
law on the relevant issue, not whether the instructions were perfect." Myers
v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, 2002 OK 60, ¶ 29, 52 P.3d 1014, 1029. (Footnote
omitted.) "The test of reversible error in giving jury instructions is whether
the jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would
have rendered if the errors alleged had not occurred. Johnson v. Ford Motor
Co., 2002 OK 24 ¶ 14, 45 P.3d 86, 92-93." Covel v.
Rodriguez, 2012 OK 5, ¶ 26,
272 P.3d 705, 716.
THE APPEAL
¶10 Summarized, Chesapeake's appeal raises two main issues for consideration.
Chesapeake argues Plaintiffs' expert's evidence was improperly admitted, causing
a failure of competent and sufficient evidence of causation, injury or damages,
and the jury was not properly instructed about damages. We address these
contentions in turn.
Expert Testimony and Daubert
¶11 Chesapeake argues the evidence provided by Plaintiffs' three experts,
petroleum engineer Earl Gary Keen (Keen), environmental consultant Jerry James
Black (Black), and real estate appraiser Jim R. Artman (Artman), was
incompetent, insufficient, and inadmissible under the principles set forth in
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct.
2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). As a result, Chesapeake contends, the trial court
abused its discretion by admitting the experts' opinions into evidence,
Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof, and a directed verdict should
have been entered.
¶12 Factors to consider when assessing the admissibility of expert testimony
are set forth in cases such as Daubert and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v.
Patrick Carmichael et al., 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238
(1999), both of which were explicitly adopted for application in Oklahoma civil
actions in Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10, ¶ 14, 65 P.3d 591, 600.
¶13 The Kumho court held Daubert's general holding setting
forth the trial judge's general "gatekeeping" obligation "applies not only to
testimony based on 'scientific' knowledge, but also to testimony based on
'technical' and 'other specialized' knowledge" and cautions Daubert's
"list of specific factors neither necessarily nor exclusively applies to all
experts or in every case." 526 U.S. at 141, 119 S.Ct. at 1171. The Kumho
Court notes, 525 U.S. at 142, 119 S.Ct. at 1171, how
[T]he law grants a district court the same broad latitude when it decides
how to determine reliability as it enjoys in respect to its ultimate
reliability determination. See General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522
U.S. 136, 143, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997) (courts of appeal
are to apply "abuse of discretion" standard when reviewing district court's
reliability determination.)
(Emphasis in original.)
The objective of the gatekeeping requirement "is to insure the reliability
and relevancy of expert testimony." Kumho, 526 U.S. at 152, 119 S.Ct. at
1176.
¶14 In Worsham v. Nix, 2006 OK 67, ¶ 35, 145 P.3d 1055, 1067, the Court
lists the four factors set out in Gray as:
1. Can the theory or technique be, or has it been, tested; 2. Has the
theory or technique been subjected to peer review and publication; 3. Is
there a "known or potential rate of error . . . and the existence and
maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation;" and 4. Is
there widespread acceptance of the theory or technique within the relevant
scientific community.
Id., [Gray], 2003 OK 10, ¶ 8, 65 P.3d at
597-598,citing and quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-594, 113 S.Ct.
2786.
"In Gray, of course, we made it clear that the Daubert factors
were intended to be flexible and were not intended to be a rigid standard
applicable to every case." Id., ¶ 36, p. 1067. Whether particular
Daubert factors are, or are not reasonable measures of reliability in a
particular case is a matter about which the law grants a trial judge broad
latitude to determine, and "a trial judge must make a determination of the
appropriate factors of reliability based upon the nature of the controversy
before it." Frasier, Frasier & Hickman, L.L.P. v. Flynn, 2005 OK CIV APP 33, ¶ 23, 114 P.3d 1095, 1102 (Approved for
Publication by the Supreme Court).
¶15 As the Court teaches in Gray, "a Daubert challenge includes
an initial determination of whether the expert's method is one where reliability
may be taken for granted," 2003 OK
10, ¶ 11, 65 P.3d at 600, but, as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Kumho, "when the evidence is not novel a trial court may make that
determination and avoid a prolonged Daubert inquiry." 2003 OK 10, ¶ 11, 65 P.3d at 599.
(Emphasis in original.) Citing Kumho, 526 U.S. at 153, 119 S.Ct. at 152,
the Court in Gray noted the trial court must exercise its gatekeeping
function to assure the reliability and relevance of an expert's testimony
"whether relying on 'professional studies or personal experience,'" and
to assure the expert employs "'the same level of intellectual rigor' the expert
would use outside the courtroom when working in the relevant discipline."
Id., ¶ 13, p. 600. (Emphasis added.)
¶16 The Worsham Court further explains, 2006 OK 67, ¶ 37, 143 P.3d at
1068:
Thus, Gray makes clear that in all cases where the reliability of
an expert's testimony is sufficiently challenged, the trial court, in its
gatekeeping role, must make a determination as to whether such evidence has
sufficient indicia of reliability to be admitted for jury consideration,
although the four Daubert factors may or may not be pertinent
depending upon the nature of the issue at hand, the expert's particular
expertise, and the subject of his testimony. We made it clear, however, that
a trial court has a responsibility to insure that an expert's opinion on
causation is something more than ipse dixit, i.e., "a bare
assertion resting on the authority of an individual." See Gray, 2003 OK 10, ¶ 36 and n. 19, 65
P.3d at 607 and n. 19, quoting Black's Law Dictionary, 961 (4th
ed.1951).
At the time of trial in July of 2012, 12 O.S.2011 § 2702, the controlling
statute on the central evidentiary issue, provided: "If scientific, technical or
other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the
evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by
knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify in the form of
an opinion or otherwise" and 12
O.S.2011 § 2703 provided3:
The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an
opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert
at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in
the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the
facts or data need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or
inference to be admitted.
We review the admissibility of Plaintiffs' experts' testimony with these
statutes and factors in mind, along with the Gray Court's direction how,
if sufficiently challenged, "the trial judge must determine whether the
testimony has a 'reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of [the
relevant] discipline.'" 2003 OK
10, ¶ 11, 65 P.3d at 599 (citing Kumho, 526 U.S. at 149, 119 S.Ct. at
1175, quoting, Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. at 2786).
Keen
¶17 Chesapeake contends Keen's opinion is based on speculation, not
scientific proof, and he is not qualified by knowledge, skill, experience,
training or education, rendering his gas migration opinion insufficient to
establish causation. Chesapeake contends Keen failed to conduct additional
testing to rule out pipelines as a source of contamination, and he admitted the
science governing mitigation was geology, but he was not a geologist. Plaintiffs
contend Keen did consider and eliminate other sources of contamination,
including pipelines. They argue Keen observed the site, checked records, and
reviewed tests, including down hole pressure tests and cement bond logs for the
well.
¶18 According to his testimony, Keen has the experience and education
described hereafter. He earned bachelor and master of science degrees in
petroleum engineering at the University of Missouri at Rolla. At the University
of Oklahoma, he earned a master of public administration degree in management
and a master of science in environmental engineering. He did work toward but did
not complete a doctorate in petroleum engineering. Keen was licensed in Oklahoma
as a petroleum engineer in 1979 and as a civil engineer in 1987. He is not a
geologist or hydro geologist, but his job requires him "to take a lot of geology
courses."
¶19 Keen worked in the oilfield for oil companies during summers while in
college. After earning his baccalaureate, Keen worked for about seven and a half
years for an oil company both in the United States and overseas in water flow
operations, reservoir work, offshore oil field development, and production work
and drilling as an operations engineer, which also included investigating and
determining responsibility for pollution problems. After earning his masters
degree he was employed by Gulf Oil Company in Oklahoma City as an enhanced
recovery engineer, an engineering sub-specialty involving fluid flow through
porous media and deep underground pressures. When he enrolled in the Ph.D.
program at the University of Oklahoma he was hired to teach a Blowout Prevention
School in a program run by the School of Petroleum Engineering and the College
of Continuing Education. He then ran his own oil control schools and gave
classes at large and small oil companies. In the mid-1980s, when the oil
business slowed, he quit petroleum engineering and began to work as a consultant
on a contract basis, drafting city ordinances regulating drilling production for
the City of Oklahoma City for about five years, for about ten years for the City
of Edmond, and for about twenty years for the City of Choctaw, ending in 2004.
Since 1992, Keen principally has worked as a civil engineer addressing drainage,
parking lots, detention ponds, water mains, sewer mains, and building
foundations. As a civil engineer he works with surface drainage, models of
streams, and runoff calculations.
¶20 Keen also testified to his personal knowledge of the site gained after he
was retained by Plaintiffs as an expert to investigate the source of
contamination and to the methodology he used to reach his conclusions. He
testified he applied his knowledge as a petroleum reservoir engineer and used
Darcy's Law, which he testified applies to any fluid. However, he did not
calculate any groundwater flow rates using Darcy's Law. He did not personally
measure down hole pressures but noted Chesapeake itself did that
measurement.
¶21 Keen considered possible sources of contamination including the Bettye
#1-2 Well, other wells, pipelines, surface spills, and leaks from pits during
drilling. He ruled out illegal dumping, checked records, eliminated other well
sources, and checked for but found no documentation for onsite spills. Pits had
been dug at the well and steel tanks had been put on liners in the pits, so he
could not "totally rule that out" as an on-site spill location. Keen discovered
other pipelines, except for a Chesapeake line built in 2007, are downstream from
the seep. The Chesapeake pipeline and an Atlas pipeline were pressure tested and
had holes dug next to them, with negative results as to leaks. The Atlas
pipeline was closed after the pressure test and when it was blown down, it did
not contain any liquids, only dry gas. He also went to the site and observed the
seep. Keen saw a thin layer of hydrocarbon sheen, a "rainbow," on water in the
creek. He testified cement bond logs indicated both good areas and questionable
areas where the cement could be porous or have tiny cracks. Keen testified the
cement higher than 12,500 feet from the surface is of questionable quality. He
opined the pressure test on the Betty #1-2 Well was inconclusive on whether
there was a small fracture in the well's surface casing or wear on the surface
casing due to the drill string turning, the rig being out of vertical plumb, a
slightly bent kelly, or a crooked hole in the surface casing hole. Keen advised
the well also could have a natural fracture or have had one induced by pressures
outside the surface casing back to the surface of the ground. Keen testified the
mud log showed several zones of gas production above the area of good cement and
these areas were insufficient for commercial production. He opined gas from one
of these zones entered the well's annulus (the area between the production
casing and the wall of the hole) and then migrated toward the surface. He did
not have a theory that the rock was fractured before gas came into the well's
annulus. Keen noted OCC hydrologist Shawn Coslett had earlier testified how,
despite that a gauge indicated zero pressure, after a valve from the surface
casing to a frac tank was opened, there was a loud noise from escaping gas and
gas had flowed for several minutes.
¶22 Keen searched for a pipeline owned by Aquila Southwest Pipeline and was
informed by Plaintiff Bettye Carnahan and OCC hydrologist Shawn Coslett4 that neither
could find an easement for such a pipeline and no surface markers or signs
indicate its presence near the area in controversy. He concluded this pipeline
did not exist near the contaminated area.5 From this process of elimination, Keen was "back to
the source of contamination being associated with this Bettye Well." In his
opinion the contamination flow did not move through virgin rock, it had traveled
up the wellbore until it reached the surface and then exited the wellbore. He
testified this opinion was based on principles petroleum engineers use daily,
not peer reviewed scientific methodologies. He described the area contaminated
as "not a huge leak."
¶23 Applying the Daubert principles, Keen's education, experience, and
methods do not render his opinion unreliable and therefore inadmissible. Based
on the foregoing considerations, the trial court did not abuse its discretion
when determining Keen's testimony was admissible.
Black
¶24 Black attended the University of Oklahoma, earned a bachelor of science
in zoology and a master's in environmental science from the College of
Engineering. Following graduation, he worked from 1980 to 1984 at the Oklahoma
Water Resource Board as an enforcement officer, looking at complaints and
conducting inspections of fish kills and laboratories. In 1984 and 1985, he
managed a lab certification program and sent samples of unknown materials out to
contract laboratories seeking certification. In "1984-and-a-half, almost 1985"
he transferred to the Research and Standards section at the Oklahoma Water
Resource Board, conducting cleaning surveys, clean-lake studies, and supervising
the Tar Creek remediation site. In addition, he did special enforcement
activities and was responsible for knowing safe substance levels for water for
drinking or contact and statutory standards for some pollutants, and for
maintaining and assuring the integrity of tests. He worked on projects setting
up toxicity testing standardized procedures. In 1985, he started his own
environmental consulting company, providing consulting services to companies
needing help to come into compliance with state and federal laws, and monitoring
sites, including Resource and Recovery Act sites and hazardous sites. He
testified he has been qualified to testify concerning environmental remediation,
chemical fingerprinting, and gas chromatography analysis in state and federal
district courts.
¶25 Black was retained by Plaintiffs to look at the seepage, take samples,
find the extent of pollution, become familiar with the area as it related to the
seepage, and develop a remediation plan. He examined gas chromatography analysis
generated by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and Chesapeake. He reviewed OCC
files before a site visit in April of 2010. He examined the spring and took
samples of it. He walked the ravine containing the spring to a fence line. He
did some boring 40 yards above the spring and encountered ground water polluted
with condensate. Black took samples of sediments at different levels during the
boring and of water found beneath the surface. He could smell oil on the spring
and saw visual sheens on the water. The odor was strong, and he had to back out
"every now and then" to get some fresh air. Black was on site for about seven
hours during this site visit. He visited the site a total of five times, several
times when Chesapeake experts also were on site.
¶26 At his business, Black keeps a running list of the rental cost of
different types of equipment used for cleanups. For Plaintiffs' site he proposed
cleaning it by constructing approximately 468 feet of trench; installing
monitoring wells; doing two high pressure washes of the spring area; collecting
the wash products and water with booms and pads; removing contaminated
sediments; removing contaminated dirt; disposing of the contaminated dirt, wash
water, and wash materials; testing; and restoring the area by removing the
trench. Compared to the Tar Creek remediation, he characterized this project was
"very small." The subtotal cost just for the stream irrigation/washing is
"almost $100,000." He calculated the total cost of the equipment, disposal, and
materials was $482,390.63.
¶27 Applying the Daubert factors, Black's education, experience, and
methods do not render his testimony inadmissible due to being unreliable. The
trial court did not abuse its discretion when determining Black's testimony was
admissible.
Artman
¶28 Artman testified he has been a real estate appraiser for 39 years, and he
is the owner of a real estate appraisal company. Prior to forming his company,
he was employed during the 1970s by Sooner Federal Savings and Loan and Oklahoma
Appraisal Company. His appraisal work is not confined to a certain area of
Oklahoma and he has previously appraised property in Beckham County.
¶29 Artman has a bachelor of administration in mathematics and has completed
21 hours toward an MBA degree. Starting in the 1970s, he took "numerous" courses
in appraisal, mostly in working towards a Member Appraisal Institute
designation, and courses, including continuing education, for State of Oklahoma
certification. He has attended a seminar given by the Appraisal Institute on
different factors to consider when analyzing contaminated property. Artman is a
member of Real Estate Appraisal Data, Inc., an appraisal group in the Oklahoma
City area, and is one of 45 appraisers appointed to the Standards and
Disciplinary Procedures Committee for the Oklahoma Real Estate Appraisal Board.
As a member of that committee he serves on three-member panels hearing
grievances to determine if there is a violation of the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice and to recommend discipline, fines, or
penalties. Artman is a one of 389 Certified General Appraisers in Oklahoma and
is qualified to appraise all types of properties.
¶30 Artman has performed 15 appraisals for diminution in value resulting from
contamination and, in the past five years, has prepared this type of appraisal
for lawsuits. He has appeared as an expert witness in the federal district court
in Oklahoma City and multiple state district courts.
¶31 Artman testified Advisory Opinion No. 9 defines diminution in value as
the difference between the unimpaired and impaired values of the appraised
property due to increased risks or costs attributable to the property's
environmental condition. Artman first determined the property's highest and best
use by applying tests of what uses are physically possible, legally permissible,
and financially feasible to ascertain the maximally productive use. He concluded
the highest and best use of Plaintiffs' property was agricultural, i.e.,
for cultivation or ranching. He looked at eight comparable sales to value the
land, four of which were most comparable, and other comparable sales for the
residence on the land. He opined the unimpaired value of the land was $800 per
acre and the residence's value was $65,000. He walked the area of contamination
and observed a sheen of oil residue along the creek bed and dead trees and
vegetation. Artman walked the perimeter of the property to "get an idea of the
lay of the land" and reviewed Beckham County soil surveys, assessor records, and
deeds. He learned the property was issued an organic farming certificate by the
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry in 2003. Artman testified
he did not know the full extent of contamination or the chemicals involved, and
he obtained the cost of remediation from Black. He testified appraisers do not
typically have scientific or technical expertise and they routinely rely on
experts with a background in remediation. Artman has worked with Black on six or
seven similar occasions and considers Black reliable. He allowed that if Black's
clean-up costs were changed, his own diminution in value appraisal would also
change.
¶32 Artman described three effects or factors to look at to assess impaired
value: (1) cost effect, such as deductions for remediation costs, (2) use
effects, such as limitations or restrictions on use, and (3) risk effect, such
as environmental risk or uncertainty or market stigma perceptions. He testified
that Advisory Opinion No. 9 permits an appraiser to determine a diminution in
value based solely on the costs of remediation. Using the edition of Advisory
Opinion No. 9 in effect on December 27, 2007, the date of his appraisal, Artman
concluded Plaintiff's 611 acre property had an unimpaired value of $554,000
($800 per acre plus $65,000 for the house) and, using the cost effect factor, a
diminution in value of $483,431 to the property as a whole if not cleaned up. He
attributed the diminution to the property as a whole because it was one
contiguous ranch. Artman concluded a willing buyer would not pay more than
$70,659 for the property with the on site contamination in place due to the cost
of cleanup.6
¶33 Chesapeake claims only OCC may require remediation and, as a consequence,
Artman's appraisal is flawed. We reject this claim because Plaintiffs seek
damages, not remediation itself. As to jurisdictional powers of OCC and of the
district courts, the Court, in Meinders v. Johnson, 2006 OK CIV APP 35, ¶ 27, 134 P.3d 858, 866, explains:
Clearly, and in keeping with the limited jurisdiction of the Corporation
Commission, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has recognized that the district
courts of this state possess the authority to determine private rights'[sic]
disputes arising from mineral production. Tenneco Oil Co.[v. El
Paso Natural Gas Company], 1984 OK 52, ¶¶20-23, 687 P.2d
[1049] at 1053-54. Indeed, there seems little doubt that only the district
courts of this state possess jurisdiction to award nuisance or negligence
damages for pollution and cleanup. Union Texas Petroleum Corp. v.
Jackson, 1995 OK CIV APP
63, 909 P.2d 131;
Tenneco Oil Co. v. Allen, 1973 OK 129, 515 P.2d 1391; Sheridan Oil
Co. v. Wall, 1940 OK 225,
103 P.2d 507. See also,
Marshall v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 874 F.2d 1373 (10th Cir. (Okl.)
1989); Greyhound Leasing & Financial Corporation v. Joiner City
Unit, 444 F.2d 439 (10th Cir. (Okl.) 1971). And, it appears that a party
may pursue a damages claim in district court concurrently with a remediation
action before the Corporation Commission. Schneberger v. Apache
Corp., 1994 OK 117, 890 P.2d 847; Union Texas
Petroleum Corp., 1995 OK CIV
APP 63, ¶19, 909 P.2d at 139. Further, a successor operator may be held
liable for maintaining a pollution-related nuisance created by a
predecessor. Union Texas Petroleum Corp., 1995 OK CIV APP 63, ¶26, 909 P.2d
at 141.
We reject Chesapeake's OCC argument as a basis for reversal.
¶34 Applying the Daubert principles, Artman's opinion is based upon
common and customary measures used by appraisers applying relevant industry
guides, and he does not lack sufficient and relevant experience and education to
form his conclusions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Chesapeake's request to bar Artman from testifying.
¶35 The question of the weight to be accorded the testimony of the challenged
experts was for the trier of fact and will not be re-weighed on appeal under the
guise of evaluating admissibility. The trial court has not been shown to have
abused its discretion in allowing admission of the challenged testimony and
reversal on the basis of inadmissibility is rejected.
Instructions
¶36 Chesapeake contends the jury was misled into awarding unreasonable
damages by improper jury instructions. Chesapeake contends it "objected that the
instructions failed to inform the jury of [its] theory of what constituted
required and reasonable remediation." (Emphasis in original.)
Chesapeake contends it unsuccessfully offered instruction requiring the jury to
consider the reasonable remediation costs "in accordance with the laws,
policies, rules, and regulations" of the State of Oklahoma and the OCC, how OCC
has "exclusive jurisdiction over site remediation," and that OCC would determine
whether remediation was required and what level of cleanup was needed. The trial
court also rejected Chesapeake's proposed instruction limiting damages to a
restricted portion of Plaintiffs' property.
¶37 "The test on review of instructions given or refused is whether there is
a probability the jury was misled to the prejudice of the complaining party,
Wilkerson Motor Co., Inc. v. Johnson, [1978 OK 12], 580 P.2d 505 (Okla. 1978), or a
proper issue was excluded from the jury's consideration. Woodall v. Chandler
Material Co., [1986 OK 4], 716 P.2d 652 (Okla. 1986)." Rogers
v. Welltech, Inc., 1991 OK CIV APP 2, ¶ 8, 813 P.2d 534, 536.
¶38 The jury was instructed not to use speculation or guesswork and that
their "decision must be based on probabilities, not possibilities." They were
cautioned against double recovery both as to temporary and permanent damages and
as to Plaintiffs' three theories of liability - trespass, public nuisance, and
private nuisance.7 They were instructed how permanent damage was the
difference between "the reasonable market value of the affected property"
immediately before and after injury and temporary damage was "the cost of
restoring the affected property to its former condition," with compensation for
loss of its use, and how the cost of restoration "cannot exceed the depreciated
value of the affected property itself." They were instructed to decide if
remediation was needed, and if it was not that no damages should be awarded, but
if remediation was needed, then they should determine an amount of damages to be
awarded Plaintiffs. The jury was instructed a damage award based on remediation
"may not exceed the difference between the 'fair market value' as the term is
used in these instructions of the affected property" before and immediately
after "the hydrocarbons were discovered" and to determine damages based on the
evidence using a three step process:
First Step: The dollar amount which represents a)
the fair market value of the affected property immediately before the
hydrocarbons were discovered; and b) the dollar amount which
represents its fair market value immediately after the hydrocarbons were
discovered.
Second Step: The dollar amount which represents
the difference between a) and b) in the First Step is
the "diminution in the value" of the affected property, and the damages may
never exceed this amount.
Third Step: The dollar amount
which you have determined is the reasonable cost of remediating the affected
property.
(Emphasis in original.)
Chesapeake contends the jury was "left to conjecture about the proper
damages" and about what area was the "affected property." Chesapeake argues the
jury should have received its "clarification" instruction advising that
Plaintiffs had only presented evidence that three acres of their property were
affected. The record does not support this contention, which conflates the
question of the physical area affected by pollution with the question of damages
for impairment in value. At one point during Black's testimony, Chesapeake's
counsel asked if it would be "a fair estimate to say" the area affected by
pollution was three acres or less, to which Black answered he had not done that
calculation. Chesapeake presented its own evidence concluding any damages
were limited to a small area. In contrast, Plaintiffs presented evidence of
impairment to the value of the whole property if the seep were not cleaned
up.
¶39 Chesapeake contends the jury should have received its proposed
instructions regarding OCC exclusive jurisdiction over site remediation, the
cost for remediation under OCC policies, rules, and regulations, and that "the
OCC would determine whether a remediation was required and cleanup levels to be
achieved." As noted above, Plaintiffs sought damages, not an order for site
remediation. The refusal of the instruction does not present reversible
error.
¶40 The weight and credibility to be ascribed to the competing views on the
area of Plaintiffs' property suffering an impairment in value was a question for
the jury. Having considered the instructions given, the evidence, the issues
raised and the instruction requested, we conclude the instructions given
substantially covered the issues and the applicable law was adequately and
fairly explained to the jury. Further, nothing in the record indicates the jury
itself was confused on the issues. We conclude there was no prejudicial
misstatement of law and no fundamental error in the instructions and the
omission of the requested instructions do not constitute reversible error under
the record presented. The judgment will not be disturbed due to the
instructions.
CONCLUSION
¶41 "It is not for us to weigh the evidence. We consider all the evidence
tending to support the verdict, together with every reasonable inference from
it. We must affirm unless there is an entire absence of proof on a material
issue." Ellison v. Campbell, 2014 OK 15, ¶ 13, 326 P.3d 68, 73. (Footnote and
emphasis omitted.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining
the testimony of the three experts challenged by Chesapeake was admissible.
Further, no reversible error is shown as to the jury instructions given and
refused. The judgment entered on the jury's general verdict in favor of
Plaintiffs and setting damages at $234,000 is AFFIRMED.
¶42 In a separate section of their answer brief, Plaintiffs request appeal
related attorney fees and costs. However, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has revised
the applicable rule on appellate attorney fees. Okla.Sup.Ct.R. 1.14(B) provides:
"A motion for an appeal related attorney's fee must be made by a separately
filed and labeled motion in the appellate court prior to issuance of mandate."
Plaintiffs' request for appeal related attorney's fee is denied without
prejudice to refiling pursuant to Okla.Sup.Ct.R. 1.14.
JOPLIN, P.J., concurs, and BUETTNER, J., concurs in result.