Shell Pipe Line Corp. v. Old Ben Coal Co.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
677 F. Supp. 572 (1988)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
The Shell Pipe Line Corporation (Shell) (plaintiff) operated an oil pipeline that ran across southern Illinois. The Old Ben Coal Company (Old Ben) (defendant) operated a coal mine under the pipeline. Old Ben’s operation used a mining method called longwall mining. Longwall mining, unlike more traditional methods of mining, did not make efforts to avoid subsidence; in fact, longwall mining was almost guaranteed to cause subsidence to the land above. In response to Old Ben’s operation, Shell took preventive measures to guard against subsidence damage from the mining. Shell estimated that these measures cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Shell requested an opinion from the Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals (IDMM) that Old Ben should be responsible for those costs. Shell also sued Old Ben, claiming that Old Ben was responsible for the costs associated with the preventive measures. To support its claim, Shell cited (among other things) a state regulation that provided that persons who conducted underground mining and caused subsidence damage would need to indemnify for all damages that occurred. But the IDMM took the position that the regulation Shell cited was for remedying the cost of actual damages, not the cost of preventive care. Old Ben moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Foreman, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
