Rock Island Improvement Company v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc.
698 F.2d 1075 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The measure of damages for breach of a reclamation clause in a mining lease is the reasonable cost of performance, rather than the diminution in the property's value, when state public policy, as expressed through legislation enacted after prior contrary precedent, strongly favors reclamation.
Facts:
- From 1968 to 1977, Rock Island Improvement Company leased two tracts of land in Oklahoma to Helmerich & Payne, Inc. for coal mining.
- The lease contained a reclamation clause requiring Helmerich & Payne to restore the surface 'as nearly as possible to its condition prior to said mining operation' upon completion.
- Helmerich & Payne subleased the land to Sam Sexton, Jr., who conducted strip-mining operations that left two large strip pits on the land.
- When the lease ended, the land was not reclaimed as required by the contract.
- After the Oklahoma Supreme Court's 1963 decision in Peevyhouse, but before this lease was executed, Oklahoma enacted the Open Cut Land Reclamation Act, which established a state public policy in favor of reclaiming mined land.
- The estimated cost to perform the reclamation as required by the lease was $375,000.
- The parties stipulated that the failure to reclaim the land diminished its fair market value by only $6,797.
Procedural Posture:
- Rock Island Improvement Company sued Helmerich & Payne, Inc. in federal district court (a court of first instance) for breach of contract.
- Helmerich & Payne filed a third-party complaint against its sublessee, Sam Sexton, Jr.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rock Island, awarding $375,000 in damages.
- Helmerich & Payne filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for a new trial, both of which the trial court denied.
- Helmerich & Payne, as appellant, appealed the judgment and the denial of its post-trial motions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the rule limiting damages to the diminution in land value apply to a breach of a reclamation clause in a mining lease when the cost of performance is grossly disproportionate to the diminution in value, but the state has since enacted strong public policy legislation favoring reclamation?
Opinions:
Majority - Logan, Circuit Judge.
No. When a state has expressed a strong public policy in favor of land reclamation, the proper measure of damages for breach of a contractual reclamation clause is the cost of performance, even if that cost is grossly disproportionate to the resulting diminution in the land's market value. The court reasoned that while the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision in Peevyhouse v. Garland Goal & Mining Co. previously limited such damages to the diminution in value under certain circumstances, that precedent was no longer controlling. The court predicted that the Oklahoma Supreme Court would no longer follow Peevyhouse because the state's public policy had fundamentally changed with the passage of the Open Cut Land Reclamation Act. This legislation, enacted after Peevyhouse but before the lease in question, demonstrated Oklahoma's strong interest in the reclamation of mined lands, making it logical to assume the parties intended the reclamation clause to be fully enforced. Therefore, the cost of performance is the correct measure of damages, as it aligns with both the contract's explicit terms and the state's declared public policy.
Analysis:
This case serves as a key example of how a federal court, exercising diversity jurisdiction, will predict a change in state common law based on subsequent legislative action (an 'Erie guess'). It establishes that a significant shift in public policy, codified in statute, can effectively supersede prior judicial precedent without the state's highest court having to explicitly overrule it. The decision prioritizes the enforcement of contractual terms that align with public policy, particularly in the environmental context, over common law doctrines like economic waste that might limit damages. This ruling strengthens the enforceability of reclamation clauses and signals that courts will enforce such promises according to their plain meaning when supported by a strong public policy mandate.
Unlock the full brief for Rock Island Improvement Company v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc.