Pennsylvania Federal Court Approves $850,000 Jury Award To Homeowners Whose Property Experienced Increased Stormwater Runoff After Construction Of Natural Gas Pipeline
March 6, 2023
By: Carl L. Engel
On February 28, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in the case Marcum v. Columbia Gas Transmission LLC, affirmed a jury’s award of $850,000 to a couple who experienced increased stormwater runoff on their property after a company built a pipeline through it. The pipeline company had argued that, because it had obtained all the necessary permits and its construction plan had been approved by the state and local governments, it cannot be liable to the homeowners for resulting stormwater damage to their house. The court disagreed, however, finding that the permits and plan did not supersede other laws regarding stormwater management, and there was evidence that the pipeline company had violated these permits anyway. This case illustrates the rights of Pennsylvania homeowners with respect to the numerous pipeline companies operating in the state, as well as their avenue for recovering damages.
Scott and Kerstin Marcum purchased their house in 1998 subject to an easement that granted Columbia Gas Transmission LLC the right to build a natural-gas pipeline through the property. In the summer of 2015, Columbia installed the pipeline, and the Marcums soon thereafter brought a lawsuit for damage caused to their property during and after construction. At trial, the Marcums presented evidence that Columbia’s removal and installation of water-diversion features caused an increase in stormwater runoff that damaged their property. Among other things, Columbia had removed a landscaped “diversion berm” or “water bar” that had been installed on the property prior to 2015 to divert rainwater away from the house. Further, berms were installed and trees were removed on the property of the Marcums’ upslope neighbor, which caused rainwater to be diverted toward their house. The Marcums claimed that the increased rainwater had caused flooding in their basement and sinkholes to develop on the property. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found that Columbia had violated the Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Act (the “SWMA”) and awarded the Marcums $850,000 in damages.
Columbia asked the court to vacate the jury’s award, arguing that the Marcums had not presented enough evidence to demonstrate that it had violated the SWMA. Specifically, Columbia argued that it had complied with all requirements to obtain the necessary permits from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and that the Marcums had not offered a “calculated finding” of increased stormwater runoff on their property.
The court disagreed, however, finding that Columbia’s permits did not allow it to ignore the requirements of the SWMA during construction, nor was the issuance of the permits a tacit acknowledgment that the plan did not violate the SWMA. Moreover, evidence was presented at trial of several permit violations by Columbia related to stormwater, displaying a general disregard for the effects of runoff onto neighboring properties. As to Columbia’s argument regarding a “calculated finding” of increased stormwater runoff, the court found no support in the law for Columbia’s position that this was required for the Marcums to prevail on their claims. The court observed that the Marcums’ expert had testified at trial that the changes to their backyard during construction had caused the quantity and velocity of stormwater to “nearly double,” and this was sufficient to find that Columbia had violated the SWMA.
This case is an important victory for Pennsylvania homeowners, and a reminder of their rights with respect to the pipeline companies that own easements on thousands of properties in the region. While construction and maintenance easements allow these companies to install pipelines and to maintain them on these properties, they must do so without causing damage to the houses of the people that live there. If a pipeline company fails in this obligation, homeowners should not hesitate to hold it accountable.