Opinion ID: 3006720
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Future Well Impacts

Text: Exxon argues that the State’s “future, speculative, and unknown well and site impacts” are not ripe for review. Before trial, Exxon raised this argument in a summary judgment motion. The trial court denied the motion, stating: It is well settled in New Hampshire that an injured party may seek recovery for future harm that will arise from a current injury. In order to recover for future damages, a party need only show that there is evidence from which it can be found to be more probable than not that the future damages will occur. Thus, contrary to [Exxon’s] argument, New Hampshire has no absolute prohibition on awarding future damages. The court finds that the State’s damages for future and unknown well impacts are fit for . . . judicial determination. Importantly, the injury causing the future harm has already occurred. The injury occurred when MTBE entered State waters. The State’s claim for future damages merely seeks to measure the extent of the harm caused, which New Hampshire allows. Furthermore, the court has already determined that the methods undertaken by the State’s experts for determining the future harm . . . are relevant and reliable. Therefore, the State’s future damages claims are ripe for review under the first prong of the ripeness test. (Quotation, citations, and brackets omitted.) Exxon moved for a directed verdict following the State’s conclusion of its case-in-chief arguing, in part, that the State failed to present its damages 42 figure with sufficient certainty. Exxon argued that the State failed to prove that it has “sustained a cognizable injury” and that the State’s damages evidence was insufficient. The trial court rejected the motion, stating: The State need only show an approximation of its harm. As this Court’s prior orders on this issue explain, the State does not need to have identified every contaminated well in New Hampshire to show it is injured. Nonetheless, the State presented testimony in its case-in-chief through Gary Beckett, Dr. Ian Hutchison, Dr. Graham Fogg, Steve Guercia, and Brandon Kernen. These witnesses estimated the number of wells that are currently suffering contamination based on statistical sampling, the location of spill sites, and the number and proximity of drinking wells in New Hampshire. The mere fact that the State’s damages figure is based on an approximation does not make it speculative or legally insufficient. Further, the evidence presented during the State’s case-in-chief regarding the estimated costs of remediation efforts based on estimated contamination is sufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude the State has suffered a cognizable injury. (Citation omitted.) Following the jury verdict Exxon moved for JNOV, arguing that “several aspects of the jury’s damages award for future well testing and treatment . . . are unsupported by the evidence.” Denying the motion, the trial court stated: Exxon explains that even if it is liable, the damages figure the jury awarded is speculative because it is based on expert estimations and not supported by evidence; it is not sufficiently definite. The Court considered and rejected this argument in its directed verdict order: “The mere fact that the State’s damages figure is based on an approximation does not make it speculative or legally insufficient.” Because Exxon raises no new facts or law, the Court will not reconsider its prior ruling. As such, the record is not so clearly in Exxon’s favor that the Court can find the jury’s verdict is unsustainable. (Citation omitted.) In addition, Exxon moved to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, arguing that “[j]ust because MTBE is in groundwater now does not mean that it will injure private wells in the future,” and, therefore, “these projected injuries are speculative and were not ripe.” The trial court rejected Exxon’s argument, stating: 43 This Court has ruled that the State’s injury already occurred; MTBE has already been brought into New Hampshire. Exxon sought a jury instruction on imminent and immediate harm, which the Court denied. Whether the State has been injured is a question for the jury, but prospective damages are proper where there was evidence from which the jury could find it more probable than otherwise that such damage would occur. Because Exxon’s motion raises no new issues of law or fact, the Court declines to reconsider its prior rulings. (Quotation and citations omitted.) On appeal, Exxon argues that the trial court erred “in allowing the State to claim more than $300 million in damages for the costs of testing private wells for possible MTBE contamination, $150 million to treat whatever contamination is found in the wells in the future, and another $218 million for anticipated generalized costs to characterize . . . and clean up release sites,” because these claims are unripe and should be dismissed. Exxon asserts that the State “did not present proof of actual or imminent contamination to particular private wells,” and that the State’s claims for treatment of future private-well impacts “are even more uncertain, remote, and contingent.” According to Exxon, the trial court’s ruling “dramatically increased the scope of this suit and took the [court] into territory where no common law court has gone before.” The State argues that its harm “exists today, and recompense for this type of harm is certainly no less recoverable than future medical expenses or damages for loss of income, both of which are regularly awarded in tort actions without raising ripeness concerns.” The State also asserts that its testing and future-treatment claims are ripe because the State “presented concrete evidence of damage that already has occurred.” “[R]ipeness relates to the degree to which the defined issues in a case are based on actual facts and are capable of being adjudicated on an adequately developed record.” Appeal of City of Concord, 161 N.H. 344, 354 (2011). Although we have not adopted a formal test for ripeness, we have found “persuasive the two-pronged analysis used by other jurisdictions that evaluates the fitness of the issue for judicial determination and the hardship to the parties if the court declines to consider the issue.” Appeal of State Employees’ Assoc., 142 N.H. 874, 878 (1998). We find no error in the trial court’s rulings on this issue. The State’s claims for future testing and treatment are fit for judicial determination as the harm from MTBE has already occurred. Cf. In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prod., 175 F. Supp. 2d 593, 607-11 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (individual plaintiffs could not show a present threat of imminent harm because either 44 they had not tested their private wells or tests did not detect MTBE in their wells). The record establishes that, as of the time of trial, over 1,000 drinking wells in the state had tested positive for MTBE, and, of those, 358 wells were contaminated at levels over the maximum contaminant level of 13 ppb. The record also establishes that more than 5,000 wells, which have not yet been tested, were likely already contaminated with MTBE above 13 ppb at the time of trial. The record also contains evidence that the damage from MTBE contamination is not limited to drinking wells. According to the State’s experts, MTBE has a “residence time” of up to 50 years, during which time it gradually seeps through subsurface zones toward wells, lakes, and wetlands. The State’s experts testified that, although leaks from some underground storage tanks might not yet have been detected, those leaks “will continue to pose a hazard to groundwater quality.” As the jury was instructed: The State is entitled to be fully compensated for the harm resulting from ExxonMobil’s legal fault. .... In determining the amount of damages to allow the State, you may . . . . consider whether it is more probable than otherwise that its damages will continue into the future as a direct, natural and probable consequence of ExxonMobil’s legal fault and, if so, award it full, fair, and adequate compensation for those future damages. Exxon does not present any argument on the hardship prong of the ripeness test, and we therefore consider any argument regarding that prong to be waived. See State v. Roy, 167 N.H. 276, 286 (2015).