ELR Citation: ELR 20114
No(s). B155019 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Jun 9, 2005)

The court held that a jury's award cleanup costs to a property owner for contamination stemming from an oil company's leaking pipeline must be reduced because the oil company did not obtain any benefits from the leak. Not only did the gasoline leakage result in a loss of product for the oil company, but it meant that pipelines either had to be repaired or abandoned and replaced by different pipelines at substantial cost. And the court rejected the notion that "benefits" includes the avoidance of remediation costs. All other aspects of the oil company's appeal, however, lack merit. The property owner had standing to sue, the trial court was not required to join another oil company as a co-plaintiff, and the oil company waived its arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence. The property owner's cross-appeal—challenging the trial court's decision to reduce costs and not to impose sanctions—equally lacked merit.