Opinion ID: 1211933
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Coal River Case

Text: The second appeal before this Court arises from claims based on flooding in the Coal River watershed (the Coal River case). In that case, a different Panel judge did not permit the case to go to trial. Unlike the judge in the Slab Fork case, the judge in the Coal River case refused to allow the plaintiffs to take discovery from the defendants. Instead, the judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, stating that: [the] Plaintiffs' complaints and amended complaints do not state what actionable conduct it is that any particular Defendant is alleged to have engaged in to cause of exacerbate any particular Plaintiff's alleged injuries.... [t]he complaints and amended complaints did not specify which plaintiffs were suing which defendants, which defendants' operations were at issue, or what was alleged to be improper with regard to any specific defendant operation.... [w]here strict liability does not apply, there must be an allegation of some liability-producing act or omission related to the harm alleged on the part of each party against which recovery is sought. General allegations that all defendants engaged in the normal activities associated with the conduct of their lawful businesses without any specific information as to each defendant to indicate that such activities were conducted improperly or unreasonably are insufficient. Following is an example of the plaintiffs' allegations against one of the defendants in the Coal River case  allegations that the Panel judge concluded did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted: a. Defendant failed to monitor, audit, and inspect timbering activities conducted on its land for compliance with BMPs (Best Management Practices industry standards); b. Defendant failed to compare BMP compliance of timbering activities conducted on its land with state BMP surveys and failed to set benchmarks for future performance and improvement; c. Defendant failed to implement riparian protection measures, such as marking or flagging streamside management zones (SMZs) in advance of timber harvests on its land; d. Defendant failed to develop a program or plan for protection of streams from timbering; and e. Defendant's timbering activities disturbed an unreasonable percentage of drainage area corresponding to one or more of the twenty-one client clusters set out in plaintiffs' April 7, 2006 Unified Disclosures. f. Surface mining operations on defendant's land violated, and were found to be in violation of, West Virginia mining regulations intended to reduce surface water runoff and/or minimize downstream sediment deposition on July 8, 2001; g. Defendant failed to conduct a surface water runoff analysis before, during, and/or after conducting its surface mining activities; h. Defendant failed to develop a plan to control surface water runoff from mining operations; j. Defendant failed to develop a plan to minimize downstream sediment deposition from mining operations; k. Defendant engaged in surface mining activities and the construction of valley fills in an area that was unreasonably close to a local population center and where it was found to do harm; and l. Defendant failed to reclaim its valley fills during construction by using a more appropriate valley fill construction method such as the bottom-up method, and instead used the less stable and more erosion-prone end-dump method. m. Upon information and belief, the conduct of defendant was unreasonable in light of all the factors to be considered under the rule of reasonable use. n. The conduct of the defendant was the proximate cause of, and/or materially contributed to, the flooding that occurred on July 8, 2001, on the property of those plaintiffs identified as claiming against the defendant. o. The conduct of the defendant unreasonably increased the risk of flooding of the property of plaintiffs. p. The defendant unreasonably interfered with the use and enjoyment of plaintiffs' property by increasing the risk of flooding. The plaintiffs in the Coal River case ask that the Panel judge's order of dismissal be reversed and that their case be reinstated.