Date: 04-03-2001

Case Style: Moore v. Texaco, Inc.

Case Number: 00-6043

Judge: Paul L. Kelly, Jr.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Plaintiff's Attorney: Michael L. Darrah, Bill M. Roberts and Hilary S. Allen, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: M. Benjamin Singletary, Ronald N. Ricketts and Theodore Q. Eliot of Gable & Gatwals, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Description: Plaintiff-appellant Tommy Moore appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee Texaco, Inc. Moore sought to hold Texaco liable for damage caused by oil spills from oil storage tanks previously located on Moore's property. Moore asserted claims of negligence, trespass, public and private nuisance and abatement, and unjust enrichment. The district court rejected each of these theories of liability. We affirm.(1) Texaco(2) purchased the land now owned by Moore (the "property") on April 1, 1915. Along with the land, Texaco purchased twenty-two 55,000 barrel steel tanks previously used for oil storage on the property. Texaco operated the property as a "tank farm" until 1954. At that time, it sold the tanks to the Natasco Company, which removed them.

On November 3, 1955, Texaco sold the property to Moore's father, L.A. Moore. In the deed to L.A. Moore, Texaco retained the mineral rights to the property. Moore, the plaintiff in this action, acquired the property when his father L.A. Moore died in 1976.

Prior to the 1955 purchase, L.A. Moore resided on land adjacent to the property. Both Moore and his father L.A. Moore knew that a tank farm had previously been located on the property. There is no evidence of record that Texaco conducted any oil field operations on the property after the sale to L.A. Moore.

Moore alleges that the surface soil, subsurface soil, surface water and groundwater on the property is contaminated by crude oil, natural gas and other crude oil by-products. He contends that he was unaware of this contamination until 1997. He also alleges that Texaco built large earthen berms and dikes on the property that alter and distort the natural contours of the land and provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome: Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: None