Opinion ID: 157699
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence on Trespass Claim

Text: Northern contends that the landowners failed to meet their burden of proof as to their claim that Northern’s storage gas trespassed onto their properties. When a jury verdict is challenged on appeal, our review is limited to determining whether that verdict is supported by substantial evidence when the record is viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. See Western Gas Processors, Ltd. v. Woods Petroleum Corp. , 15 F.3d 981, 987 (10th Cir. 1994). “‘Substantial evidence, while something less than the weight of the evidence, is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if different conclusions also might be supported by the -5- evidence.’” Kenworthy v. Conoco, Inc. , 979 F.2d 1462, 1468 (10th Cir. 1992) (quoting Gilbraltar Sav. v. LDBrinkman Corp. , 860 F.2d 1275, 1297 (5th Cir. 1988)). We “will not retry the issues or second guess the decision-making of the jury. It is the jury’s exclusive province to assess the credibility of witnesses and determine the weight to be given to their testimony.” Lamon v. City of Shawnee , 972 F.2d 1145, 1159 (10th Cir. 1992). Northern maintains that each of the landowners was required to prove that the storage gas had entered the Simpson formation underlying his or her property. Although conceding that some of the landowners met this burden, Northern contends that the jury verdict finding that a trespass had occurred as to all of the landowners was improper. Under the second element of the district court’s instruction on trespass, a plaintiff was required to prove “[t]hat the defendant Northern caused an entry of storage gas on to the plaintiff’s property.” Aplt. App. at 212. Applying the above standard of review, it was reasonable for the jury to infer from the evidence that the landowners sufficiently met their burden of proof. The district court reached the same conclusion. See Aple. Brief, app. C at 2. Northern is correct in its assertion that the landowners failed to directly prove that the storage gas was under each of their properties. However, the jury heard evidence related to the geological characteristics of the Simpson formation; -6- specifically, that the formation is a blanket sand which is highly permeable, continuous, and interconnected. See Tr. at 91, 217-18. In addition, the jury heard that a saltwater buffer zone is necessary as part of an integrated system for storing gas in the formation, see Tr. at 86-87, 216, 244, 286-90, 310-11, 430, and that rentals are normally paid for the entire acreage, whether used for buffer or gas storage. See Tr. at 288. Most important, the jury heard evidence from the KCC proceedings, in which Northern sought to prove that the entire acreage was suitable for the storage of natural gas. In those proceedings, Northern introduced evidence showing that up to ten billion cubic feet of storage gas had migrated from the Viola to the Simpson formation, see Tr. at 85, 91, and that as much as twenty-three percent of the total volume capacity of the two formations was in the Simpson formation. See Tr. at 100. In his testimony before the KCC, introduced at trial, a Northern senior engineer stated that Northern had actually been storing gas in the Simpson formation under all of the landowners for the prior seventeen years. See Tr. at 98. Northern attempts to characterize this prior testimony as being introduced solely for the purposes of impeachment. However, our reading of the transcript indicates that it was offered as substantive evidence. John Rose, Northern’s senior engineer, was called by the landowners as an adverse witness for the purpose of showing the jury what evidence the KCC considered when deciding to -7- certify all of the Simpson formation as suitable for storage. See Tr. at 98-99. The landowners could have made the nature of this evidence more clear both for the jury and for appellate review if they had identified, marked, and introduced into evidence the transcript from the KCC proceeding. Finally, another of Northern’s witnesses at trial testified that the entire Simpson formation provided aquifer support for the storage operation. See Tr. at 430. It seems clear that a jury could make a reasonable inference from this evidence that there was an entry of storage gas in each of the landowners’ properties. See Sunward Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. , 811 F.2d 511, 521 (10th Cir. 1987) (jury entitled to draw reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence). B. Sufficiency of Evidence on Unjustment Enrichment Claim Northern also argues that the landowners failed to meet their burden of proof as to their claim that Northern was unjustly enriched by storing its gas in the Simpson formation. Again, our review is limited to determining whether that verdict is supported by substantial evidence. See Western Gas , 15 F.3d at 987. Northern’s challenge to the evidence on the unjust enrichment claim is essentially the same as its challenge to the evidence on the trespass claim, that is, that the landowners failed to prove that storage gas was present under each of the -8- landowner’s property. As such, we need not reiterate the evidence at trial supporting the landowners’ claim that the trespass was to the entire Simpson formation. In addition, the jury heard evidence that having gas in the Simpson formation benefitted Northern by increasing Northern’s ability to store gas and sell during times of peak demand, see Tr. at 80-81, 92, 289-90, and that the gas stored in the Simpson formation was worth at least $12,000,000. See Tr. at 92. Therefore, we hold that there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict on unjust enrichment. C. Interpretation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 55-1210(c)(3) Finally, Northern contends that the district court misinterpreted Kan. Stat. Ann. § 55-1210(c)(3) in allowing the landowners to recover attorney fees, costs, and expenses. We review de novo the district court’s statutory interpretation. See Ellis v. University of Kansas Med. Ctr. , 163 F.3d 1186, 1193 (10th Cir. 1998). Under the rules of statutory interpretation in Kansas, “if a statute is plain and unambiguous, [the court] must give effect to the expressed statutory language. A statute is ambiguous when two or more interpretations can fairly be made.” Link, Inc. v. City of Hays , No. 80,523, 1999 WL 22975, at  (Kan. Jan. 22, 1999) (citations omitted). Section 55-1210(c) deals with storage gas that has migrated to an adjoining -9- property. According to the statute, the gas injector does not thereby lose title to the gas, as long as it can prove that the gas was originally injected into its underground storage. The statute further gives the injector the right to conduct well tests on the adjoining property in order to determine ownership of the gas. Subsection (c)(3), 1 which is at issue here, deals with the rights of those persons upon whose property gas has migrated. As reflected by the emphasized portion of the statute, if litigation is necessary to enforce rights under subsection (c), in this case compensation for use of the substratum, attorney fees and costs are recoverable if the injector does not prevail. Clearly, litigation was necessary here and the injector did not prevail. Under Northern’s reading of this subsection, attorney fees and costs are available only when disputes over the ownership of gas are at issue. Such an interpretation ignores the plain language of the statute, as does Northern’s characterization of the “rights under this subsection (c)” as only those described 1 Subsection (c)(3) provides: The owner of the stratum and the owner of the surface shall be entitled to such compensation, including compensation for use of or damage to the surface or substratum, as is provided by law, and shall be entitled to recovery of all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, if litigation is necessary to enforce any rights under this subsection (c) and the injector does not prevail. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 55-1210(c)(3) (emphasis added). - 10 - in subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2), that is, the ownership rights of the injector over the migrated gas and the right to conduct reasonable tests to determine ownership. The district court found that the “rights under this subsection (c)” also referred to the right of the property owner in subsection (c)(3) to compensation for use of or damage to the surface or substratum, as is provided by law. See Aple. Brief, app. A at 15. Because the landowners recovered compensation for Northern’s use of the Simpson formation and litigation was necessary to enforce this right, they were entitled to the fees and expenses described in subsection (c)(3). We do not find the statute to be ambiguous, and agree with the district court’s analysis. Northern argues that the district court’s construction of the statute leads to an absurd result, where the injector always pays for attorney fees and expenses, at least where litigation occurs. Thus, when there is litigation over the ownership of gas and it is determined that the gas belongs to the property owner, the gas injector pays for attorney fees and expenses. When the litigation results in a finding that the gas belongs to the injector, then the property owner can assert a claim of trespass on the basis of that finding and be entitled to attorney fees and expenses. However, in painting this scenario, Northern ignores the district court’s conclusion that § 55-1210(c)(3) does not create an independent statutory cause of action for trespass. See Aple. Brief, app. A at 14-15. Thus, the court required the landowners to prove each of the elements of common law trespass, - 11 - which go beyond simply showing that an injector’s gas has migrated onto a plaintiff’s property. Specifically, a plaintiff is further required to show intent or negligence on the part of the injector. See Aplt. App. at 212 (jury instruction on trespass). It is true, as Northern asserts, that a statute should be given “a reasonable construction so as to avoid unreasonable or absurd results.” Tompkins v. Bise , 910 P.2d 185, 188 (Kan. 1996). However, the fact that § 55-1210(c)(3) does not provide an independent cause of action for trespass avoids the absurdity that Northern envisions. While our construction of the statute may not produce the kind of results that Northern considers optimal, we “must give effect to the intent of the legislature as expressed rather than determine what the law should or should not be.” Id.