Title: BOGART v. CAPROCK COMMUNICATIONS CORP.

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

BOGART v. CAPROCK COMMUNICATIONS CORP.  BOGART v. CAPROCK COMMUNICATIONS CORP. 2003 OK 38 69 P.3d 266 Case Number: 97349 Decided: 04/08/2003 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA JAMES A. BOGART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CAPROCK COMMUNICATIONS CORP.; Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellee; and SOUTHBEND CORPORATION; UNITED FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; and, JOHN DOE(S) I through X, Defendants/Appellees, v. POWER ENGINEERS, INC., Third-Party Defendant. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SEQUOYAH COUNTY Honorable John C. Garrett, Trial Judge ¶O The appellant, James A. Bogart (Bogart/landowner), the owner of real property in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma discovered that the appellee, CapRock Communications Corporation (CapRock/telecommunications company), had installed fiber optic cables within the confines of a public road easement which was located on Bogart's property. The public road easement had been granted to Sequoyah County by the landowner's predecessor in title. Subsequently, Bogart brought a class action lawsuit against CapRock, seeking compensation for the installation of cables without first obtaining the landowner's permission and/or providing compensation. The telecommunications company filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that neither landowner permission nor compensation were required under Oklahoma law. The trial court, Honorable John C. Garrett, granted summary judgment for CapRock. The landowner appealed and we retained the cause. We hold that under the facts presented, pursuant to Nazworthy v. Illinois Oil Co., TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED. Harry Scoufos, Thomas W. Condit, Sallisaw, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Don G. Holladay, Timothy D. DeGiusti, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellee CapRock Communications Corp. James K. Secrest, II, Edward J. Main, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellants Southbend Corp. & United Fire & Casualty Co. KAUGER, J: ¶1 The only issue presented FACTS ¶2 This cause concerns a class action lawsuit ¶3 Bogart purchased the property, "less and except public road rights of way" and subject to "any easements of record," in January of 1992. ". . . [the owner/owners] so long as this easement is in full force and effect defend the same unto Sequoyah County, Oklahoma, against all and every person whomever claiming the same. This easement is granted for the sole purpose of enabling Sequyoh County, Oklahoma, its officers, agents, contractors, and employees to go upon, construct, build and at all times maintain a public road through, along and over the property herein described and enable Sequoyah County, its officers agents, contractors and employees to always keep said road open for the use of the public. . . ." ¶4 CapRock is a leading provider of telecommunications services in the south and southwestern United States. Its business involves installing underground fiber optic lines for long distance telephone service and providing local telephone exchange, long distance services, internet and data services. ¶5 The telecommunications company began installing fiber optic cables in various counties in Oklahoma, as part of its development of a 7,500 mile underground fiber optic cable network which would connect points in Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Arizona. Installation occurred along public highways and county roads and, when necessary, on private property. According to CapRock, when installation was required on private property, it obtained easements from the private property owners. ¶6 On January 18, 2000, CapRock, through its subcontractor, obtained approval from the Sequoyah County Commissioners to install fiber optic cables in Sequoyah County. ¶7 Bogart approached the crew and discovered that CapRock, through a subcontractor, had installed the fiber optic cables. On August 17, 2000, Bogart filed a class action lawsuit against the telecommunications company in the district court of Sequoyah County, Oklahoma. ¶8 The cause was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On May 11, 2001, CapRock filed a motion for summary judgment in the federal court. It argued that, under Oklahoma law, a right of way or easement which was properly granted for the establishment of a public road, permits the use and occupancy of telephone, telegraph, electric and pipelines within the confines of the right of way or easement. On August 15, 2001, the federal court remanded the case to the district court of Sequoyah County, Oklahoma. ¶9 On August 23, 2001, the telecommunications company re-filed the summary judgment motion in state court. The landowner filed a motion for partial summary judgment on September 13, 2001. The trial court granted summary judgment to CapRock on January 14, 2002. ¶10 UNDER THE FACTS PRESENTED, THE INSTALLATION OF FIBER OPTIC CABLES WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR EASEMENT ON WHICH PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OR ROADS ARE ESTABLISHED DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY INCREASED SERVITUDE ON THE LAND WHICH WOULD ENTITLE THE LANDOWNER TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. ¶11 The landowner does not dispute the State's power to take private property for a public purpose. Rather, he argues that: 1) the easement granted to Sequoyah County was for the sole purpose of contracting, building and maintaining a public road; 2) the installation of fiber optic cables within the easement burdens the property with an additional servitude which was not granted by the easement; and 3) the installation of the fiber optic cable in the public roadway easement, even if authorized by the State, constitutes a taking without just compensation and violates the Okla. Const. art. 2, §24. ¶12 The telecommunications company agrees that real property owners must be compensated for private property taken for public use. ¶13 We note at the outset that by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, we are bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court with respect to the federal constitution and federal law, and we must pronounce rules of law that conform to extant Supreme Court jurisprudence. ¶14 The landowner's reliance on Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., ¶15 Loretto dealt with a requirement that private landlords allow cable television companies to attach facilities to the landlord's property. Here, unlike the landowner in Loretto, there was an initial compensation for the taking when the public highway/road easement was established. At issue here is whether the installation of fiber optic cables falls within the purpose for which the easement was initially granted or whether it imposes an increased servitude or burden for which additional compensation is required. ¶16 We agree with the telecommunications company that the Okla. Const. art. 9, §2, ¶17 In Nazworthy, the state highway commission instituted condemnation proceedings to widen an existing highway right of way. As a result of the eminent domain proceedings, the property owner was compensated for the addition to the right of way. Thereafter, the highway commission requested that the oil company which owned an oil pipeline buried along the public highway easement, move its pipeline onto the widened strip of land. The property owner sued the oil company, asserting that additional compensation should be paid for placing the pipeline within the confines of the widened public highway right of way. ¶18 The Nazworthy Court determined that the property owner was not entitled to additional compensation. The Court recognized that the purpose of a highway includes a passage for transmission and communication. It also noted that oil pipeline companies were, by statute: 1) given the right of eminent domain and the use of highways for purposes of transporting petroleum products; 2) allowed the right to construct pipelines over, under and across highways in this state; and 3) were required to seek approval and supervision from the Corporation Commission. ¶19 The Nazworthy court said: ". . .[T]he new or different use of the highway, or new or different method of transmission or transportation, is but a further proper use of the highways; that general purpose of highways being that subject to proper supervision, they may be used by the public and by common carriers for such form of travel, transportation, and transmission as may be in keeping with the declared policy of the state; a chief restriction being that each such use of the highway shall not improperly interfere with the rights of others in the use of the same highways. The proper use of the highways by oil pipelines, located, laid and maintained under proper supervision does not interfere with the various other uses of the highways. . . . After a highway is constructed it is used generally for travel, transportation, and transmission. As new methods of transportation develop they are used upon the highway whether that use is by bus, truck, or oil pipeline. When the landowner has been compensated for the taking of the highway, it is too difficult to follow a contention that he is additionally damaged by each different, new, or additional use of the highway for travel, transportation, or transmission. We conclude that the use of the highway here under consideration, authorized by specific state statute, enjoyed under specific supervision of the state, is wholly within the primary law of the use of the highway and must be held to be no such additional burden or servitude as would entitle the abutting landowner to additional compensation for such use. . . ." Three other opinions issued after Nazworthy v. Illinois Oil Co., Nazworthy CONCLUSION ¶20 Summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions or other evidentiary material establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED. ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. FOOT