Columbia Gas Transm., L.L.C. v. Ohio Valley Coal Co. (Slip Opinion)

2020 Ohio 6787, 172 N.E.3d 107, 164 Ohio St. 3d 113
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 22, 2020
Docket2019-0838
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 Ohio 6787 (Columbia Gas Transm., L.L.C. v. Ohio Valley Coal Co. (Slip Opinion)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Columbia Gas Transm., L.L.C. v. Ohio Valley Coal Co. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 6787, 172 N.E.3d 107, 164 Ohio St. 3d 113 (Ohio 2020).

Opinion

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Columbia Gas Transm., L.L.C. v. Ohio Valley Coal Co., Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6787.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-6787 COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, L.L.C., APPELLEE, v. OHIO VALLEY COAL CO. ET AL., APPELLANTS.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Columbia Gas Transm., L.L.C. v. Ohio Valley Coal Co., Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6787.] Administrative agency exceeded scope of its authority by adopting rule that requires mining operators to pay for damage to surface structures without regard to operator’s having obtained surface-damage-liability waivers through coal-severance deeds—Former Ohio Adm.Code 1501:13-12-03(F) is invalid to the extent it exceeds federal law. (No. 2019-0838—Submitted August 4, 2020—Decided December 22, 2020.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County No. 17AP-413, 2019-Ohio-1004. __________________ DEWINE, J. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 1} This case involves a dispute between a coal-mining company and the owner of a natural-gas pipeline over whether the pipeline owner may recover for damage caused to the pipeline as a result of mining. The mining company holds its interest in the coal underneath the lands through property deeds that severed the mineral interest from the surface estate. These deeds include provisions waiving liability for damage to the surface of the land caused by mining activities. The pipeline owner says that these surface-damage-liability waivers have been rendered invalid by a regulation written by an administrative agency requiring mining operators to pay for damage to surface structures as a result of subsidence from mining. We must decide who is correct. {¶ 2} We conclude that the deed waivers are valid and enforceable. An administrative agency possesses only the authority that has been delegated to it by the legislature. And here, the General Assembly never gave the agency the authority to write a rule that would extinguish existing property rights beyond that which was mandated by federal law. Because the agency lacked statutory authority to adopt an administrative regulation invalidating the mining company’s property interest, the deed waivers are valid. As a result, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and, on those grounds, reinstate the judgment of the trial court in favor of the mining company. I. The lower courts hold that the deed waivers are unenforceable {¶ 3} Consolidated Land Company and Ohio Valley Coal Company (collectively, “Ohio Valley Coal”) own the rights to coal reserves under certain tracts of land in Belmont County. The coal reserves lie beneath a natural-gas pipeline owned and operated by Columbia Gas Transmission, L.L.C. {¶ 4} Ohio Valley Coal’s mineral interests stem from early-20th-century deeds severing the coal estate from the surface estate. The coal-severance deeds granted Ohio Valley Coal’s predecessors the right to mine without supporting the surface and contained an express waiver of claims for damage caused to the surface

2 January Term, 2020

estate. Columbia Gas subsequently acquired surface rights-of-way to run its pipeline across the land above the coal reserves. {¶ 5} In 2010 and 2012, Ohio Valley Coal obtained permits to mine the land underneath Columbia Gas’s pipeline. Before the mining began, Columbia Gas took measures to protect its pipeline from subsidence that was expected to occur as a result of the mining. The mining permits specified that Columbia Gas was responsible for protecting its pipeline from damage that might result from subsidence and required Ohio Valley Coal to ensure that Columbia Gas had taken steps to mitigate damage to the pipeline before the mining operation approached the pipeline. {¶ 6} In 2012, Columbia Gas brought this action against Ohio Valley Coal pursuant to R.C. 1513.15(H), which authorizes an action for damages by “[a]ny person who is injured in person or property through the violation by any [coal mining] operator of any rule, requirement, order, or permit” adopted or issued under R.C. Chapter 1513. Columbia Gas sought compensation for the expenses it incurred for the measures it had taken to prevent damage to the pipeline as well as for alleged postmining damage to the pipeline. Ohio Valley Coal contended that the surface-damage-liability waivers contained in the coal-severance deeds protected it from any liability for damage. Both parties sought a declaratory judgment regarding the priority of the competing property rights and the validity and enforceability of the deed waivers. {¶ 7} The trial court found that the coal-severance deeds predated the surface rights-of-way obtained for construction of the pipeline. The court therefore concluded that under the deeds containing the surface-damage-liability waivers, Ohio Valley Coal possessed superior property rights, resulting in its “virtually unfettered right to mine the coal in the areas critical to this case.” The trial court’s determinations as to the priority of the property interests and scope of the deed waivers are not disputed in this appeal.

3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 8} Although the trial court found that Ohio Valley Coal possessed superior property rights, it determined that the surface-damage-liability waivers had been invalidated by an administrative regulation adopted by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (“ODNR”) that required mining operators to pay for damage to surface structures. The regulation was adopted pursuant to Ohio’s Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (“SMCRA”), codified in R.C. Chapter 1513. The version of the rule in effect during the mining operation and throughout the trial-court litigation provided that the mining operator “shall correct material damage caused to any structures or facilities by repairing the damage or shall compensate the owner of such structures or facilities in the full amount of the diminution in value resulting from subsidence.” Former Ohio Adm.Code 1501:13- 12-03(F), 2010-2011 Ohio Monthly Record 2-1427, effective Oct. 28, 2010. {¶ 9} Thus, the trial court concluded that Ohio Valley Coal could be held liable for damages under the administrative regulation. But because the rule required mining operators to pay only for damage “resulting from subsidence” from mining, the trial court concluded that Columbia Gas was not entitled to recover the costs of the preventive measures it had taken to protect the pipeline. The trial court found that Columbia Gas had not established that the pipeline had sustained damage as a result of subsidence. The trial court therefore denied Columbia Gas’s claim for relief and entered judgment in favor of Ohio Valley Coal. {¶ 10} Columbia Gas appealed the trial court’s damages determination and Ohio Valley Coal cross-appealed the trial court’s determination that the Ohio SMCRA had nullified its surface-damage-liability waivers. The Tenth District Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the administrative regulation had rendered the deed waivers unenforceable. 2019-Ohio-1004, 126 N.E.3d 1203, ¶ 33. But it held that Columbia Gas could seek an award of damages for its preventive measures. Id. at ¶ 39. Although Columbia Gas sought damages pursuant to statute and had not alleged any tortious conduct on the part of Ohio

4 January Term, 2020

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 Ohio 6787, 172 N.E.3d 107, 164 Ohio St. 3d 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbia-gas-transm-llc-v-ohio-valley-coal-co-slip-opinion-ohio-2020.