Enbridge Pipeline (Ill.), L.L.C. v. Murfin
| Citation | 2020 IL App (5th) 160007,148 N.E.3d 786,439 Ill.Dec. 733 |
| Decision Date | 28 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 5-16-0007,5-16-0007 |
| Parties | ENBRIDGE PIPELINE (ILLINOIS), L.L.C., n/k/a Illinois Extension Pipeline Company, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark MURFIN Jr., Brenda Murfin, Peoples National Bank, as Mortgagee, and Nonrecord Claimants and Unknown Owners, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Thomas J. Pliura, of LeRoy, for appellants.
John M. Spesia and Jacob E. Gancarczyk, of Spesia & Ayers, of Joliet, for appellee.
¶ 1 Plaintiff, Enbridge Pipelines (Illinois), L.L.C., now known as Illinois Extension Pipelines Company, L.L.C. (IEPC), filed a condemnation action in the circuit court of Marion County seeking to acquire permanent and temporary easement interests in property owned by defendants (landowners), Mark Murfin Jr. and Brenda Murfin, in accordance with the Eminent Domain Act (Act) ( 735 ILCS 30/1-1-1 et seq. (West 2014)) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a liquid petroleum pipeline. Landowners filed a traverse and motion to dismiss (traverse motion) requesting dismissal of IEPC's condemnation action, which the court later denied pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2014) ).
¶ 2 Before the case proceeded to a jury trial on the issue of just compensation, landowners filed a counterclaim seeking compensation for damage to the remainder of their property not taken, and IEPC filed numerous motions in limine seeking to preclude landowners from presenting certain evidence or testimony to establish diminution in value or remainder damages at trial. The circuit court subsequently granted IEPC's motions to exclude evidence or testimony concerning certain factors, including pipeline dangers and the terms of the easement. The court also restricted testimony and limited cross-examination concerning those factors at trial. After trial, the jury found that the just compensation due to landowners totaled $59,000, and the court entered a final judgment to that effect.
¶ 3 Landowners appeal, raising a number of issues that challenge the circuit court's rulings on their traverse motion and certain evidentiary matters. For the following reasons, we vacate the court's denial of landowners' traverse motion and remand with directions for further proceedings.
¶ 6 IEPC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal office in Houston, Texas. IEPC is the wholly owned subsidiary of an energy transportation and distribution corporation, Enbridge, Inc. (Enbridge), and, thus, is affiliated with Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (Enbridge Partners), and Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge Energy). Enbridge is headquartered in Canada and has a liquid transportation unit that conveys, through an integrated pipeline network, oil from producers and shippers in western Canada to markets and refineries in the United States and Eastern Canada. The pipeline network, which spans approximately 1900 miles across North America, is comprised of numerous segments, including the international "Mainline System," the "Southern Access Expansion System," the "Southern Lights System," the "Ozark System," and the "Spearhead System." Enbridge Partners and Enbridge Energy own and operate the United States portion of the Mainline System, known as the Lakehead System, which spans across seven states, including Illinois.
¶ 7 In December 2005, Enbridge Partners and Enbridge Energy initiated the "Southern Access Expansion Project" (SAX project) to provide "adequate, efficient, and economic transportation service for producers and users of crude petroleum." The initial phase of the SAX project involved the construction of a new pipeline in Wisconsin that would run parallel to the Lakehead System. The next phase of the project involved the construction of a new pipeline that would run from the termination point of the initial phase of the project to Enbridge's Flanagan terminal located near Pontiac, Illinois. The SAX project, if completed, would allow Enbridge to transport an additional 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) to its Flanagan terminal.
¶ 9 In April 2007, Enbridge Partners and Enbridge Energy were certified by the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) as common carriers by pipeline pursuant to section 15-401 of the Common Carrier by Pipeline Law (Pipeline Law) ( 220 ILCS 5/15-401 (West 2006) ) of the Public Utilities Act (Utilities Act) ( 220 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. (West 2006)). The ICC also authorized Enbridge Partners and Enbridge Energy to construct, operate, and maintain the second segment of the SAX project along an approved route pursuant to section 8-503 of the Utilities Act (id. § 8-503). Specifically, the ICC authorized the two entities to construct, operate, and maintain a new pipeline from the Wisconsin border to Enbridge's Flanagan terminal.
¶ 10 In August 2007, IEPC filed an application with the ICC (Docket No. 07-0446) seeking certification and authorization for the construction, operation, and maintenance of an extension of the SAX project (Extension Project) along a proposed route. The proposed route of the Extension Project originated at Enbridge's Flanagan terminal and terminated near Patoka, Illinois, traversing over 679 tracts of land located in the counties of Livingston, McLean, De Witt, Macon, Shelby, Christian, Fayette, and Marion. The application indicated that 60-foot-wide permanent and temporary easement rights along the proposed route were necessary to facilitate the construction, operation, and maintenance of the SAX pipeline. IEPC's application requested the following: (1) issuance of a "Certificate in Good Standing" pursuant to section 15-401 of the Pipeline Law (id. § 15-401 ), which can be found in the Utilities Act ( 220 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. (West 2006)); (2) authorization for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 36-inch diameter, underground oil pipeline pursuant to section 8-503 of the Utilities Act (id. § 8-503); and (3) authorization to enter upon, take, or damage private property in the manner provided by the law of eminent domain when necessary for the construction of the Extension Project pursuant to section 8-509 of the Utilities Act (id. § 8-509).
¶ 11 In July 2009, following a lengthy investigation and hearing, the ICC issued an order in Docket No. 07-0446. In the order, the ICC (1) granted IEPC a certificate in good standing; (2) authorized IEPC to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed 36-inch pipeline; and (3) authorized IEPC to operate as a common carrier by pipeline within an area 60 feet wide and extending approximately 170 miles along the proposed route identified in the application. The ICC denied IEPC's request for eminent domain authority and directed IEPC to continue negotiations with the landowners but indicated that IEPC could renew its request after demonstrating that it had "made reasonable attempts to obtain easements, through good-faith negotiations."
¶ 12 Several affected landowners-intervenors appealed the ICC's order granting IEPC a certificate in good standing to the Fourth District Appellate Court. Pliura Intervenors v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n , 405 Ill. App. 3d 199, 200, 347 Ill.Dec. 373, 942 N.E.2d 576 (2010) ( Intervenors I ). On review, the Fourth District affirmed the ICC's order after rejecting the intervenors' arguments that the ICC improperly found that a public need for the pipeline existed and that IEPC was fit, willing, and able to construct, operate, and maintain the pipeline. Id. at 208-09, 347 Ill.Dec. 373, 942 N.E.2d 576. The Illinois Supreme Court subsequently denied the intervenors' petition for leave to appeal. Pliura Intervenors v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n , 239 Ill. 2d 589, 348 Ill.Dec. 198, 943 N.E.2d 1108 (2011) (table).
¶ 13 In July 2013, IEPC filed a petition with the ICC (Docket No. 13-0446) renewing its request for eminent domain authority. In the petition, IEPC alleged that, although continued negotiations had reduced the number of "holdout" landowners from 148 to 127, the remaining landowners had either refused to negotiate or declined IEPC's compensation offers.
¶ 14 In December 2013, an administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing on IEPC's petition. At the hearing, an engineer employed by the ICC testified that, in order to obtain approval to exercise eminent domain authority, IEPC was required to show that reasonable attempts to acquire the land rights through the negotiation process had been made and that any future attempts would have been unsuccessful. The engineer further testified that the ICC would consider numerous factors in evaluating IEPC's negotiation efforts, including the following: (1) the number and extent of the IEPC's negotiations with the landowners, (2) whether the compensation offer was explained to the landowners, (3) whether the offered compensation was comparable to offers made to similarly situated landowners, (4) the efforts that were made to address the landowners' concerns, and (5) the probability that successful negotiations would be reached in the future. The engineer opined that IEPC had made sufficient efforts with regard to each factor and recommended approval of IEPC's petition for eminent domain authority. The ALJ subsequently issued a recommendation that the ICC grant IEPC eminent domain authority.
¶ 15 In April 2014, following a hearing, the ICC issued a written order in Docket No. 13-0446. In the order, the ICC accepted the recommendation of the ALJ and, pursuant to section 8-509 of the Utilities Act ( 220 ILCS 5/8-509 (West 2014) ), authorized IEPC to seek eminent domain authority in accordance with the Act ( 735 ILCS 30/1-1-1 et seq. (West 2014)). In so doing, the ICC noted that its consideration of the factors had been complicated "to some extent" by the timing of IEPC's...
To continue reading
Request your trial