Dennis Hagy v. Equitable Production Co.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-01372. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999210758].. [12-1926]

Appeal: 12-1926

Doc: 46

Filed: 10/08/2013

Pg: 1 of 8

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1926

DENNIS HAGY; TAMERA HAGY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
DUSTIN HAGY; CLARK HAGY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
EQUITABLE PRODUCTION CO.; BJ SERVICES COMPANY, USA,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; WARREN DRILLING COMPANY,
INC.,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Joseph R. Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:10-cv-01372)

Submitted:

August 22, 2013

Decided:

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

October 8, 2013

Appeal: 12-1926

Doc: 46

Filed: 10/08/2013

Pg: 2 of 8

Kevin W. Thompson, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY,
Charleston, West Virginia for Appellants.
Timothy M. Miller,
Benjamin W. Price, ROBINSON & MCELWEE, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee Equitable Production Co.
John H. Barr,
Jr., M. Coy Connelly, Jeffrey L. Oldham, BRACEWELL & GULIANI,
LLP, Houston, Texas, for Appellee BJ Services Company, USA.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-1926

Doc: 46

Filed: 10/08/2013

Pg: 3 of 8

PER CURIAM:
Dennis and Tamera Hagy (the “Hagys”) appeal the district
court’s grant of summary judgment to BJ Services Company, USA
(“BJ Services”) and Equitable Production Co. (“EQT”) on their
negligence and trespass claims, based on their allegation that
BJ Services’ and EQT’s oil and gas operations contaminated their
well water supply. 1

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the

judgment of the district court.

I.
The Hagys own the surface rights to approximately eighty
acres of land in Jackson County, West Virginia.
Hagys

received

notices

from

EQT

informing

them

In 2007, the
that

EQT

was

preparing to file for state permits to drill new natural gas
wells on the property.
owner

waivers

for

In October 2007, Mr. Hagy signed surface

all

new

wells,

stating

that

he

had

no

objection to the proposed work on the property.
After

performing

pre-drilling

water

tests

on

the

Hagys’

water well, EQT—as well as BJ Services, Warren Drilling Company,
Inc. (“Warren Drilling”), and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

1

The Hagys’ adult sons, Dustin Hagy and Clark Hagy, were
also originally named as plaintiffs in this action.
All of
their claims against all defendants, however, were eventually
voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

3

Appeal: 12-1926

Doc: 46

Filed: 10/08/2013

Pg: 4 of 8

(“Halliburton”)—began construction in late October 2007. 2

BJ

Services

on

select

performed

dates

cementing

between

services

November

2007

on
and

three
January

gas

wells

2008.

All

drilling and completion operations were finalized by the end of
June 2008.
The Hagys allege that they began to notice changes in their
water

quality

nausea,

and

experienced

headaches,

and

temporary
heartbeat

slow

illnesses,
around

such

July

as

2008.

According to the Hagys, later that year, the quality of their
water

began

to

further

degrade

and

the

quantity

available from their well began to decline.
EQT

on

the

well

water

In

November

manganese.
complained

to

the

showed

West

increased

2008

and

Virginia

well

site

on

several

levels

February

Department

occasions

and

water

Tests performed by

Protection (“DEP”) about the water quality.
the

of

of

2009,
of

iron
Mr.

and
Hagy

Environmental

The DEP inspected

ultimately

found

no

violations.
The Hagys left the Jackson County property in April 2009.
In October 2010, they filed this lawsuit, along with their two
adult

sons,

Services,

Dustin

Warren

Hagy

and

Drilling,

Clark
and

2

Hagy,

against

Halliburton

EQT,

BJ

(collectively

The pre-drilling water tests revealed that the water
contained elevated levels of total coliform bacteria and
detectable levels of iron and manganese.

4

Appeal: 12-1926

Doc: 46

“Defendants”)

Filed: 10/08/2013

in

West

Pg: 5 of 8

Virginia

state

court,

alleging

that

Defendants had contaminated their well water supply and that, as
a result, they had suffered damages to personal property as well
as

personal

action:

injuries.

The

negligence,

complaint

private

alleged

nuisance,

five

causes

strict

of

liability,

trespass, and medical monitoring.
In December 2010, Warren Drilling removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia based on complete diversity of the parties under 28
U.S.C.

§ 1332.

All

claims

against

Warren

Drilling

and

Halliburton were eventually dismissed with prejudice, as were
the adult sons’ claims against EQT and BJ Services.
In

March

2012,

summary judgment.
summary

judgment

EQT

and

BJ

Services

filed

motions

for

The district court granted EQT’s motion for
based

on

two

release

agreements

executed

between the parties in October 2007 (prior to initial drilling
of the gas wells) and April 2008 (approximately two months after
BJ Services performed the fracturing operations).

The court

found

claims—the

that

the

Hagys

had

released

all

of

their

subject matter of which was covered by the plain language of the
releases—for

due

consideration

paid

by

EQT.

The

Hagys

subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment, which the
district court denied.

5

Appeal: 12-1926

Doc: 46

Filed: 10/08/2013

Pg: 6 of 8

The district court also granted BJ Services’ motion for
summary judgment, finding that the Hagys had failed to produce
any evidence, or even a clear theory, of a negligent act by BJ
Services that had caused any harm to the Hagys.
court

further

found

that

the

Hagys

had

The district

failed

to

provide

sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as
to any trespass or private nuisance claims.
The Hagys timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291.

II.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo, applying the same standard as the district court.

See

Nat’l City Bank of Ind. v. Turnbaugh, 463 F.3d 325, 329 (4th
Cir.

2006).

Summary

judgment

is

appropriate

“if

the

movant

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

III.
The

Hagys

raise

two

issues

on

appeal:

(1)

whether

the

district court erred in granting summary judgment to BJ Services
on their negligence and trespass claims; and (2) whether the
district court erred in granting summary judgment to EQT based
on the parties’ release agreements.
6

Appeal: 12-1926

Doc: 46

We

Filed: 10/08/2013

conclude

that

the

Pg: 7 of 8

district

court

properly

granted

summary judgment to BJ Services on the Hagys’ negligence and
trespass claims.

The Hagys have failed to provide sufficient

evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect
to any alleged negligence on the part of BJ Services.
Strahin

v.

Cleavenger,

603

S.E.2d

197,

205

(W.

Va.

See
2004)

(stating elements of negligence claim under West Virginia law).
The Hagys cannot connect any allegedly wrongful conduct by BJ
Services with the harm they claim to have suffered.

Similarly,

the

reasonable

Hagys

have

provided

no

evidence

from

which

a

trier of fact could conclude that BJ Services is liable for
trespass.
We also conclude that the district court did not err in
granting summary judgment to EQT based on the parties’ release
agreements.

The plain language of the release agreements covers

the

matter

subject

of

the

Hagys’

claims,

all

of

which

released for due consideration paid by EQT:
The Landowner hereby irrevocably and unconditionally
releases, acquits and forever discharges [EQT] . . .
from any and all Claims of any kind or nature.
“Claims” as that term is used in this Agreement
includes
any
and
all
liabilities,
obligations,
agreements, damages, causes of action for injuries to
persons or damage to property . . . suits, rights,
demands, costs, losses, whether known or unknown and
whether now existing or yet to accrue, arising from or
relating in any way whatsoever to the Drilling
Operations and Additional Damage.

7

were

Appeal: 12-1926

(J.A.

Doc: 46

Filed: 10/08/2013

265–66

opportunity

(emphasis
to

Pg: 8 of 8

added).)

The

legal

counsel

consult

Hagys
in

had

an

adequate

negotiating

the

agreements, and the law presumes that they knew the contents of
each prior to signing, thereby voluntarily agreeing to release
all claims as defined therein.

See Sedlock v. Moyle, 668 S.E.2d

176,

curiam)

180

(W.

Va.

extraordinary

2008)

(per

circumstances,

the

(“‘[I]n

failure

to

the

absence

read

a

of

contract

before signing it does not excuse a person from being bound by
its terms.’” (quoting Reddy v. Cmty. Health Found. of Man, 298
S.E.2d 906, 910 (W. Va. 1982))).

We further conclude that the

district court properly rejected the Hagys’ arguments that the
releases

were

procured

by

fraud.

See

White

v.

Nat’l

Steel

Corp., 938 F.2d 474, 490 (4th Cir. 1991) (citing Lengyel v.
Lint, 280 S.E.2d 66, 69 (W. Va. 1981)) (stating elements of
fraud under West Virginia law).

IV.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

8