Case Results
Disclaimer: The case results are dependent on the facts of the particular case. Prior cases do not provide any guarantee or expectation of the outcome of a future case. Moreover, any reference to the law or explanation herein is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.
PennDOT Board of View Award
PennDOT condemned portions of land of an auto dealership in Lancaster. PennDOT offered $920,000. The Board reviewed evidence of altered access and awarded $1,800,000 in property damages, $4,000 in professional fees and also awarded delay damages.
Turnpike Taking
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission condemned over 60 acres through the McDonald Sportsmen’s Association property, West of Pittsburgh. The Turnpike offered $1,750,000 in property damages and no relocation benefits. The case settled at $6,750,000.
Relocation Benefits
The US Department of Environmental Protection ordered a business to relocate from a Philadelphia Superfund contaminated property with no compensation. Attorney Anthony Corby of Faherty Law Firm was able to negotiate relocation benefits of $500,000.
Temporary Construction Easements
A pipeline company purchased a permanent easement from a residential property. The pipeline company failed to complete the work within the two years of the temporary construction easement. Faherty Law Firm negotiated an $80,000 payment for an extension of the temporary construction easements.
PennDOT Settlement
PennDOT condemned land from a commercial property owned by a husband and wife. Simultaneously, PennDOT condemned land from a neighboring property owned by the wife and a son. PennDOT asserted the two properties were in unified ownership and offered $14,800. PennDOT thus attempted to avoid the payment of damages flowing from altered access to the second property. Faherty Law Firm obtained an Order determining that the properties needed to be valued separately. The cases then settled with payment of $28,753 for the first property and $27,038 for the second property.
Loper v. Sunoco Pipeline
After a briefing and oral argument, Sunoco Pipeline Company’s request for eminent domain and survey rights was denied by York County President Judge Linebaugh. Judge Linebaugh’s Order denying Sunoco the power of eminent domain for Mariner East 1 became final in April 2014.
Cox v. Sunoco Pipeline
This matter involved multiple property owners threatened by the Sunoco Pipeline Mariner East 1 pipeline. The parties presented evidence on the Sunoco attempt to obtain eminent domain power. The cases were stayed, or delayed, after Mike Faherty’s separate case of Loper v. Sunoco Pipeline determined that Sunoco Pipeline did not have eminent domain power. Nearly all of these cases settled with restricted easement language and large financial settlements.
Mariner East 1 Pipeline Settlement
In this matter, evidence was presented that federal approval of the pipeline project known as Mariner East 1 was for a “common carrier” and not a public utility corporation as the Pipeline Company was designated at that time. The Pipeline Company offered $63,390 based on a linear foot calculation, but the matter settled for $330,000 with revised language in the easement limiting it to a single pipeline buried to a depth of four feet across crop fields. The language also restricted access and granted the property owner use of the timber.
Board of View Issues a Favorable Decision on Church Property
Faherty Law Firm represented a small church in regard to a bridge replacement by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. The Board awarded the exact figure of the property owner’s expert opinion. The result is the doubling of the compensation paid to the church.
Pipeline Rerouted
After filing condemnation documents in the Court of Common Pleas, the Pipeline Company in this case offered the property owner $28,000. The property owner rejected this offer along with other offers up to $175,000. The property owners demanded the pipeline be rerouted to avoid the property. The Pipeline Company rerouted and paid property owners’ attorney fees and other reasonable expenses for the costs incurred to defend the property.
Electric Powerline Case Settlement
The powerline condemnation in this matter threatened a natural spring which was used for commercial water production. The Electric Company offered $14,700. Through negotiations the matter settled for $56,500, with easement language that sought to protect the natural spring by preserving the property owner’s right to damages if the spring was harmed and the language prevented the Electric Company’s use of herbicides near the spring.
Pipeline Settlement with Texas Eastern
Texas Eastern Corporation sought to acquire permanent and temporary construction easements on a property owner’s wooded tract of land in Berks County Pennsylvania. Texas Eastern offered, for both the easements and timber, $2,830. Through negotiations, the property owner’s final resolution of the matter was for $50,000.
Pipeline Settlement 1:
A pipeline company offered $100,000. The matter settled for $2,193,000. Settlement included language in the easement agreement which restricted the Company to a single pipeline; restricted access; revised construction design; and allocated funds to reduce tax implications.
Pipeline Settlement 2:
A pipeline company offered $50,000. The matter settled for $287,200. Settlement included language in the easement agreement which restricted the Company to a single pipeline; restricted access; restricted above ground items; included indemnification language; and allocated funds to reduce tax implications.
Pipeline Settlement 3:
A pipeline company offered $19,000. The matter settled for $1,577,400. Settlement included language in the easement agreement which restricted the Company to a single pipeline; restricted access; restricted above ground items; included fencing to protect livestock; included right to construct access roads across the easement; and required timber placement nearby for owners use.
Pipeline Settlement 4:
A pipeline company offered $18,945. The matter settled for $347,000. Settlement included language in the easement agreement which restricted the Company to a single pipeline; restricted access; included fencing to protect livestock; and allocated funds to reduce tax implications.
Pipeline Settlement 5:
A pipeline company offered $9,795. The matter settled for $460,000. Settlement included language in the easement agreement which restricted the Company to a single pipeline; restricted access; and allocated funds to reduce tax implications.
Pipeline Settlement 6:
A pipeline company offered $118,000. The matter settled for $785,000. Settlement included language in the easement agreement which restricted the Company to a single pipeline; restricted access; restricted above ground items; provided fencing to protect livestock; and required monitoring and repair of erosion.
Pipeline Settlement 7:
A pipeline company offered $8,815. The matter settled for $480,000. Settlement included language in the easement agreement which restricted the Company to a single pipeline; restricted access; required placement of timber nearby for owner use; and required driveway repair.
Pipeline Settlement 8:
A pipeline company offered $100,000. The matter settled for $480,000. Settlement included language in the easement agreement which restricted the Company to a single pipeline; restricted access; required placement of timber nearby for owner use; required pipeline buried at least four feet beneath the surface; and protected water line that crossed the gas line.
Pipeline Settlement 9:
A pipeline company offered $51,560. The matter settled for $600,000. Settlement included language in the easement agreement which restricted the Company to a single pipeline; restricted access; restricted above ground items; and allocated funds to reduce tax impact.
Pipeline Settlement 10:
A pipeline company offered $1,000. The matter settled for $90,000. Settlement included language in the easement agreement which restricted the Company to a single pipeline; restricted access; and removed temporary workspace easement.
