H&T Fair Hills, Ltd. v. Alliance Pipeline L.P.

H&T Fair Hills, Ltd. v. Alliance Pipeline L.P. · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · August 10, 2023 · No. No. 22-1817

Summary

The Eighth Circuit addressed whether crop-loss disputes under pipeline easements were subject to arbitration. The court held that the arbitration provisions covered damages issues and related questions concerning the Crop Yield Program, causation, and declaratory relief, and that Alliance had not waived arbitration. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, directing dismissal without prejudice of class members subject to arbitration agreements while allowing other class members to proceed.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Writing for the Court
MELLOY, Circuit Judge; LOKEN, Circuit Judge; KOBES, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
August 10, 2023
Docket number
No. 22-1817
Procedural posture
Alliance appealed the district court's order partially granting its motion to compel arbitration in a certified class action. The district court ordered arbitration of certain crop-damage and valuation issues for class members whose easements contained arbitration provisions, but kept three related issues in court.
Standard of review
The decision to grant or deny a motion to compel arbitration is reviewed de novo. Because valid agreements existed, the party resisting arbitration bore the burden of showing that the arbitration provision was invalid or did not encompass the claims at issue.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Parties
Alliance Pipeline L.P., also known as Alliance USA v. H&T Fair Hills, Ltd., Norman Zimmerman, Donna Zimmerman, Steven Wherry, Valerie Wherry, Robert Ruebel, Mary Ruebel, Larry Ruebel, Mark Hein, Debra Hein, Nicholas Hein
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

arbitrationclass actionsbreach of contractdeclaratory judgmentappellate procedure

Practice areas

arbitrationcontractsclass actionscivil procedurereal estate

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Alliance waived its contractual right to compel arbitration by waiting until after class certification to seek arbitration.
  2. Whether arbitration provisions requiring arbitration of disputed crop damages encompass claims characterized as compensation for diminished or ongoing crop yield.
  3. Whether the State Agreements, which lacked arbitration provisions, prevented enforcement of arbitration provisions in the individual landowners' easements.
  4. Whether issues concerning termination of the Crop Yield Program, causation of crop damage, and declaratory relief were within the scope of the arbitration provisions.

Holdings

  1. Alliance did not waive its right to enforce the arbitration provisions by waiting until after class certification to move to compel arbitration because none of the named plaintiffs were subject to arbitration and the motion was filed promptly after arbitration-bound class members were added.
  2. For plaintiffs whose easements contain arbitration provisions, disputes concerning whether the pipeline caused crop damage and the value and nature of that damage are subject to arbitration, including disputes described as diminished or ongoing crop yield.
  3. The State Agreements do not invalidate or prohibit enforcement of arbitration provisions contained in individual landowners' easements.
  4. The issues concerning Alliance's obligation to continue the Crop Yield Program, whether plaintiffs must prove that Alliance caused the crop damage, and the requested declaratory relief are also subject to arbitration for plaintiffs whose easements contain arbitration provisions.

Key quotations

We find the arbitration agreements to be enforceable and to cover all issues. (8)
Essentially, the district court will be required to dismiss from the class those members subject to arbitration agreements. (10)

Factual background

Alliance entered into agricultural impact mitigation agreements with North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois and separately negotiated pipeline easements with individual landowners. The easements generally required Alliance to pay for crop damages arising from pipeline-related activities, and most included provisions requiring arbitration of damages not mutually agreed upon. Alliance operated an optional Crop Yield Program beginning after the pipeline became operational, later restricted the program, and ended it in 2015. Landowners then filed a class action alleging that Alliance denied crop-loss claims and seeking compensation and declaratory relief; some class members' easements contained arbitration provisions, while none of the named plaintiffs' easements did.

Procedural history

Landowners filed a class action alleging breach of contract, nuisance, and fraudulent inducement and seeking declaratory relief concerning compensation for crop losses. The district court certified a class and later granted Alliance's motion to compel arbitration in part, sending two damages issues to arbitration while retaining three issues for litigation. Alliance timely appealed the scope of the arbitration order; the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Remand instructions

The district court must dismiss from the class those members subject to arbitration agreements and dismiss their claims without prejudice. Class members whose easements lack arbitration provisions may proceed with the lawsuit in the ordinary course.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…