Exxon Pipeline Rupture Class Action Lawsuit Tossed

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Last week, the class action lawsuit accusing Exxon Mobil Pipeline Co. of liability in the rupture of its Pegasus Pipeline located in Mayflower, Ark. in 2013 was dismissed by a federal judge.

The Exxon class action lawsuit stems from the 2013 rupture of the Pegasus pipeline that spilled more than 19,000 barrels of crude oil into the surrounding land in Arkansas. Area homeowners sued Exxon, alleging that the leaked oil could potentially affect homeowners in other states where the 650-mile long pipeline runs, beginning in Illinois and spanning through Texas. The lead plaintiffs claimed that the easement contracts required Exxon to maintain the 650 miles of pipeline and that the company’s negligence and breach of contract resulted in the catastrophic oil spill, “the worst oil and tar sands spill in Arkansas history,” according to the class action lawsuit.

In August of last year, U.S. District Judge Brian S. Miller granted partial class certification for current homeowners who possess an easement contract on their home property for the Exxon pipeline. However, Exxon filed a motion for the judge to reconsider, which Judge Miller granted last week. Judge Miller explained that, upon reconsideration, the Pipeline Safety Act preempts the landowners’ claims and that those claims are too individualized to be addressed as a Class.

Judge Miller also granted Exxon’s motion for summary judgment. Judge Miller pointed out that the easement contracts do not require Exxon to maintain the pipeline under Arkansas State law. “The only question is whether, under Arkansas law, Exxon breached its contract which … it did not,” Judge Miller said in explaining why summary judgment dismissing the Pegasus pipeline rupture class action lawsuit was appropriate.

“If Exxon’s position prevails, the message to easement grantors is that they are helpless in attempting to avoid a pipeline oil spill, and have no rights until after the oil starts spewing from the pipeline,” Judge Miller said, noting that neither option seemed fair. “On the other hand, if plaintiffs’ position prevails, easement grantors would essentially be able to hold pipeline easement holders hostage, threatening them with lawsuits or contract rescission every time the easement grantors possess any notion that the companies are not meeting the easement grantors’ personal safety standards,” he continued.

The lead plaintiffs alleged that Exxon failed to address weak seams in the pipeline and the 2013 rupture nearly contaminated the drinking water of several thousand residents. In finding that Exxon did not owe a duty to the landowners, Judge Miller explained that the pipeline must be viewed as a series of individual segments rather than a single entity.

“For example, a pipeline leak in Illinois would have no practical effect on a landowner in Texas,” Judge Miller wrote in his order. “The same principle can be applied to any purported duty to maintain or repair; simply because Exxon may not be fulfilling its duties on one person’s land does not necessarily mean it is not fulfilling its duties on all landowners’ property.”

According to Judge Miller, “[A] trial would necessarily devolve into a parcel-by-parcel analysis of whether Exxon breached each individual easement.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Phillip Duncan, Richard Quintus, William R. Pointer, Justin C. Zachary and Timothy P. Reed of Duncan Firm PA and Thomas P. Thrash and Marcus N. Bozeman of Thrash Law Firm PA.

The Exxon Pipeline Class Action Lawsuit is Rudy F. Webb v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-00232, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.