Ohio Homeowners Lose Benzene Case Against Chevron

Ohio homeowners who sued Chevron over benzene that leaked from a refinery have failed to show any compensable damages to their properties, a federal judge in Cincinnati has found.

U.S. District Judge Sandra S. Beckwith of the Southern District of Ohio granted the oil company's summary judgment motion.

Chevron USA Inc. operated a gasoline refinery near Hooven, Ohio, from 1930 to 1985 that released petroleum products into the ground through spills and leaks, according to court records.

The principal contaminant in the petroleum products was benzene, which seeped through soil into groundwater to create a hydrocarbon plume that floated free on top of groundwater, the opinion says.

Chevron agreed in 1993 to clean up the site.

Homeowners in Hooven and nearby Cleves said the benzene the refinery released damaged their properties. They brought claims against Chevron in the District Court for negligence, conspiracy, fraud, strict liability, trespass, private nuisance and failure to warn.

The company moved for summary judgment.

Judge Beckwith said nothing in the record shows that the hydrocarbon plume has done any damage to the plaintiffs' properties or has interfered with their property rights.

"Plaintiffs possess subsurface property rights to the extent of their actual and reasonable use of the subsurface," she said, and they "may only recover damages to the extent that the plume actually interferes with their use of the subsurface."

Judge Beckwith pointed out that the plaintiffs' water supply does not come from ground wells, but rather a municipal source. In addition she said the homeowners have not alleged the plume caused them to abandon any plans to use the benzene-affected properties.

The only other possible source of interference with the use of the plaintiffs' properties would be from harmful vapors from the plume rising to the surface and entering their homes, the judge said. However, the plaintiffs failed to provide any admissible evidence to that effect.

The plaintiffs' proposed expert, Philip Bedient, an environmental sciences professor at Rice University in Houston, is not qualified to render an opinion on the source of hydrocarbon contaminants, according to Judge Beckwith.

"Bedient is not a soil vapor expert and testified that he does not hold himself out as one," the judge said.

Therefore his opinion fails to meet the federal standards for the admissibility of evidence, she said.

Judge Beckwith also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that they fear developing illness and disease because of the plume.

The plaintiffs' reactions to the plume are not reasonable because the record does not reflect that the plume represents a health hazard or is likely to become one, Judge Beckwith said.

"Plaintiffs may not recover damages resulting from their fear of a nonexistent peril," she added.

The judge granted Chevron summary judgment and dismissed the claims with prejudice.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@ThomsonReuters.com.

The plaintiffs are represented by Andre F. Ducote of Lundy & Davis in Ridgeland, Miss.Chevron is represented by Jennifer B. Bonneville of Steptoe & Johnson in Los Angeles.