Oil and Gas

With just over a week left until echoes of “Hang on Sloopy” and chants of “O-H” and “I-O” can be heard from Buckeye faithful across the nation, we thought we would provide you with some light reading to hold you over until that long awaited 3:30 kick off. In this edition of our Ag Law Harvest, we focus on three recent Ohio Supreme Court cases that could potentially impact business owners, Northern Ohio landowners, and Ohio taxpayers. 

Assault and Battery: Is it Covered Under an Insurance Policy?
A victim of a stabbing at an Ohio adult care facility is unable to collect judgment from the facility’s insurance company after a recent decision by the Ohio Supreme Court. The victim was living at the facility when another resident stabbed him. The perpetrator was later indicted on criminal charges but found not guilty by reason of insanity. 

The victim then filed a civil lawsuit against the perpetrator and the facility to recover for damages resulting from the stabbing injuries. The victim ultimately dropped his lawsuit against the perpetrator and entered into a settlement agreement with the facility. As part of the settlement agreement, the victim agreed not to pursue the judgment against the facility, and instead, sought to collect his judgment from the facility’s insurance company.   

At the time of the stabbing, the adult care facility had a commercial general liability policy. When the victim sought judgment from the facility’s insurance company, the insurance company refused to provide coverage. The insurance company explained that the insurance policy contained a provision that specifically excluded coverage for any bodily injury resulting from an assault or battery. The specific provision at issue stated: 

“1. This insurance does not apply to ‘bodily injury,’ * * * arising out of or resulting from: (a) any actual, threatened or alleged assault or battery; * * *.”

The victim argued that because the perpetrator was found to be not guilty by reason of insanity in the criminal trial, the exclusion provision was nullified because the perpetrator lacked the subjective intent to commit any assault or battery. 

The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed. The Court explained that the plain language of the exclusion provision of the insurance policy at issue is clear – there is no intent requirement included in the exclusion language. Therefore, the Court held that coverage did not exist for the willful assault on the victim. The Court sympathized with the victim but ultimately could not interpret the insurance policy language to include a subjective intent requirement where none existed. 

This case demonstrates the importance of reading and understanding your business insurance policy. Insurance policies are, at the core, contracts between two parties and the language contained within the policy will usually govern that contractual relationship. What you assume is covered under your policy may not necessarily be the case. Furthermore, not all insurance policies are the same. We have seen Ohio cases where an insurance policy does require the presence of some subjective intent in order for an assault and battery exclusion to apply. Speak with your insurance agent and/or attorney to make sure you understand when and where coverage exists, knowing this can be critical to protecting you, your farm, and/or your business. 

Ohio Supreme Court Approves Northern Ohio Wind Farm. 
Residents of Huron and Erie Counties along with Black Swamp Bird Conservatory (the “Plaintiffs”) recently lost their battle in court to prevent the construction of a new wind farm in Northern Ohio. The Plaintiffs argued that the Ohio Power Siting Board (the “Board”) failed to satisfy Ohio law before granting the new wind farm its certificate of environmental compatibility and public need. Specifically, the Plaintiffs assert that the wind farm could “disrupt the area’s water supply, create excessive noise and ‘shadow flicker’ for residents near the wind farm, and kill bald eagles and migrating birds.” 

The Ohio Supreme Court found otherwise. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that the Board’s granting of the certificate was unlawful or unreasonable. As approved, the new wind farm will consist of up to 71 turbines and cover 32,000 acres of leased land. To read more about the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision visit: In re Application of Firelands Winds, L.L.C.

Ohio Supreme Court Sets New Precedent on Interpreting Ohio Tax Law.
In Ohio, most retail sales are subject to sales tax unless a certain exemption applies. Ohio law does have a sales tax exemption for equipment used directly in the production of oil and gas. A fracking business recently challenged a decision by Ohio’s Tax Commissioner and Board of Tax Appeals that levied the sales tax on certain equipment purchased by the business. The fracking equipment at issue included: a data van, blenders, sand kings, t-belts, hydration units, and chemical-additive units.

The Tax Commissioner concluded that the fracking equipment was not used directly in the extraction of oil and gas, only indirectly, and therefore, did not qualify for the tax exemption. The Ohio Supreme Court felt differently. 

The Court found that all the equipment, except the data van, is used in unison to expose the oil and gas. Because the equipment is used to expose the oil and gas – a necessary part of fracking – the Court had little difficulty concluding that the equipment is being used directly in the production of oil and gas. 

In addition to the equipment’s direct use in the production of oil and gas, the Court also recognized that the fracking equipment may also have a storage or delivery function/purpose. However, the Court reasoned that a piece of equipment’s function must be viewed through the “primary purpose” lens. For example, the Court held that although the blender equipment in this case performs a holding function, the primary use of the blender is to mix “the critical ingredients in the fracking recipe seconds before the mixture is inserted into the well.” Therefore, the Court found that the blender’s holding function did not disqualify it from Ohio’s sales tax exemption. 

Additionally, in this case, the Court also issued an opinion on how Ohio courts should interpret tax law moving forward. Normally, courts use the ever-important legal principal of stare decisis to help it decide on new cases. Stare decisis is the principal that courts and judges should honor the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases when ruling on new cases. Here, the Court took its opportunity to acknowledge that in the past the Court interpreted tax exemptions against the taxpayer, favoring tax collection. But the Court made clear that from here on out, the Court “will apply the same rules of construction to tax statutes that [it applies] to all other statutes” without a slant toward one side or the other. The Court concluded that its task “is not to make tax policy but to provide a fair reading of what the legislature has enacted: one that is based on the plain language of the [law].” 

To read the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision visit: Stingray Pressure Pumping, L.L.C. v. Harris

One of the core principles of the American legal system is that people are free to enter into contracts and negotiate those terms as they see fit.  But sometimes the law prohibits certain rights from being “signed away.”  The interplay between state and federal law and the ability to contract freely can be a complex and overlapping web of regulations, laws, precedent, and even morals.  Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on a case that demonstrates the complex relationship between Ohio law and the ability of parties to negotiate certain terms within an oil and gas lease.     

The Background.  Ascent Resources-Utica, L.L.C. (“Defendant”) acquired leases to the oil and gas rights of farmland located in Jefferson County, Ohio allowing it to physically occupy the land which included the right to explore the land for oil and gas, construct wells, erect telephone lines, powerlines, and pipelines, and to build roads.  The leases also had a primary and secondary term language that specified that the leases would terminate after five years unless a well is producing oil or gas or unless Defendant had commenced drilling operations within 90 days of the expiration of the five-year term. 

After five years had passed, the owners of the farmland in Jefferson County (“Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment asking the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas to find that the oil and gas leases had expired because of Defendant’s failure to produce oil or gas or to commence drilling within 90 days.  Defendant counterclaimed that the leases had not expired because it had obtained permits to drill wells on the land and had begun constructing those wells before the expiration of the leases.  Defendant also moved to stay the lawsuit, asserting that arbitration was the proper mechanism to determine whether the leases had expired, not a court. 

What is Arbitration and is it Legal?  Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes, outside of the court system, in which two contracting parties agree to settle a dispute using an independent, impartial third party (the “arbitrator”).  Arbitration usually involves presenting evidence and arguments to the arbitrator, who will then decide how the dispute should be settled.  Arbitration can be a quicker, less burdensome method of resolving a dispute. Because of this, parties to a contract will often agree to forgo their right to sue in a court of law, and instead, abide by any arbitration decision.   

Ohio law also recognizes the rights of parties to agree to use arbitration, rather than a court, to settle a dispute.  Ohio Revised Code § 2711.01(A) provides that “[a] provision in any written contract, except as provided in [§ 2711.01(B)], to settle by arbitration . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except upon grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”  What this means is that Ohio will enforce arbitration clauses contained within a contract, except in limited circumstances.  One of those limited circumstances arises in Ohio Revised Code § 2711.01(B).  § 2711.01(B)(1) provides that “[s]ections 2711.01 to 2711.16 . . . do not apply to controversies involving the title to or the possession of real estate . . .”  Because land and real estate are so precious, Ohio will not enforce an arbitration clause when the controversy involves the title to or possession of land or other real estate.  

To be or not to be?  After considering the above provisions of the Ohio Revised Code, the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas denied Defendant’s request to stay the proceedings pending arbitration.  The Common Pleas Court concluded that Plaintiffs’ claims involved the title to or possession of land and therefore was exempt from arbitration under Ohio law.  However, the Seventh District Court of Appeals disagreed with the Jefferson County court.  The Seventh District reasoned that the controversy was not about title to land or possession of land, rather it was about the termination of a lease, and therefore should be subject to the arbitration provisions within the leases.   

The case eventually made its way to the Ohio Supreme Court, which was tasked with answering one single question: is an action seeking to determine that an oil and gas lease has expired by its own terms the type of controversy “involving the title to or the possession of real estate” so that the action is exempt from arbitration under Ohio Revised Code § 2711.01(B)(1)? 

The Ohio Supreme Court determined that yes, under Ohio law, an action seeking to determine whether an oil and gas lease has expired by its own terms is not subject to arbitration.  The Ohio Supreme Court reasoned that an oil and gas lease grants the lessee a property interest in the land and constitutes a title transaction because it affects title to real estate.  Additionally, the Ohio Supreme Court found that an oil and gas lease affects the possession of land because a lessee has a vested right to the possession of the land to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out the terms of the lease.  Lastly, the Ohio Supreme Court provided that if the conditions of the primary term or secondary term of an oil and gas lease are not met, then the lease terminates, and the property interest created by the oil and gas lease reverts back to the owner/lessor.  

In reaching its holding, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is exactly the type of controversy that involves the title to or the possession of real estate.  If Plaintiffs are successful, then it will quiet title to the farmland, remove the leases as encumbrances to the property, and restore the possession of the land to the Plaintiffs.  If Plaintiffs are unsuccessful, then title to the land will remain subject to the terms of the leases which affects the transferability of the land.  Additionally, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that if Plaintiffs were unsuccessful then Defendant would have the continued right to possess and occupy the land.  Therefore, the Ohio Supreme Court found that Plaintiffs’ controversy regarding the termination of oil and gas leases is the type of controversy that is exempt from arbitration clauses under § 2711.01(B)(1). 

Conclusion.  Although Ohio recognizes the ability of parties to freely negotiate and enter into contracts, there are cases when the law will step in to override provisions of a contract.  The determination of title to and possession of real property is one of those instances.  Such a determination can have drastic and long-lasting effects on the property rights of individuals.  Therefore, as evidenced by this Ohio Supreme Court ruling, Ohio courts will not enforce an arbitration provision when the controversy is whether or not oil and gas leases have terminated.  To read more of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Opinion visit: https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2022/2022-Ohio-869.pdf.

Did you know that the “wise old owl” saying is a myth?  Generally speaking, owls are no wiser than other birds of prey.  In fact, other bird species like crows and parrots have shown greater cognitive abilities than the owl.  An owl’s anatomy also helps dispel the myth because most of the space on an owl’s head is occupied by their large eyes, leaving little room for a brain. 

This week’s Ag Law Harvest brings you EPA bans, Ohio case law, USDA announcements, and federal case law which could make your head spin almost as far as an owl’s.  

EPA banning use of chlorpyrifos on food crops.  The EPA announced that it will stop the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos on all food to better protect producers and consumers.  In its final rule released on Wednesday, the EPA is revoking all “tolerances” for chlorpyrifos.  Additionally, the EPA will issue a Notice of Intent to Cancel under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) to cancel all registered food uses of chlorpyrifos.  Chlorpyrifos is an insecticide used for a variety of agricultural uses, including soybeans, fruit and nut trees, broccoli, cauliflower, and other row crops, in addition to non-food uses.  The EPA’s announcement comes in response to the Ninth Circuit’s order directing the EPA to issue a final rule in response to a petition filed by opponents to the use of chlorpyrifos.  The petition requested that the EPA revoke all chlorpyrifos tolerances because those tolerances were not safe, particularly because of the potential negative effects the insecticide has on children.  For more information about chlorpyrifos and the EPA’s final rule, visit the EPA’s website.

Trusts aren’t to be used as shields.  An Ohio appeals court recently reinforced the concept that under Ohio law, trusts are not be used as a way to shield a person’s assets from creditors.  Recently, a plaintiff filed a lawsuit against a bank alleging breach of contract and conversion, among other things.  Plaintiff, an attorney and real estate developer, claimed that the bank removed money from his personal account and a trust account in violation of Ohio law and the terms of the loan agreement between the parties.  Prior to the lawsuit, plaintiff established a revocable trust for estate planning purposes and to acquire and develop real estate. This dispute arose from a $200,000 loan from the bank to the plaintiff to help establish a restaurant.  A provision of the loan agreement, known as the “Right to Setoff” provision, allowed the bank to “setoff” or effectively garnish all accounts the plaintiff had with the bank.  The setoff provision explicitly prohibited any setoff from any IRA or trust accounts “for which setoff would be prohibited by law.”  Plaintiff made all monthly payments but failed to make the final balloon payment on the loan.  Plaintiff argued that the bank broke the loan contract and violated Ohio law by taking funds from the trust account to pay off the remaining balance of the loan.  The court disagreed.  The court noted that under Ohio law, a settlor’s property in a revocable trust is subject to the claims of the settlor’s creditors.  A settlor is a person who creates or contributes property to a trust.  In this case, plaintiff was the creator, settlor, and sole beneficiary of the revocable trust.  Because of that, the court concluded the bank did not violate Ohio law when using the trust account to setoff the balance of the loan.  Additionally, the court found that the bank did not violate the terms of the loan agreement because a setoff from the trust account was not prohibited by law.  The court noted that Ohio law did not intend to allow a settlor who is also a beneficiary of the trust to use a trust as a “shield” against creditors.  Although trusts can be a useful estate planning tool, there are limits to what a trust can do, as evidenced by this case. 

Renewable fuel supporters file appeal on E15 summer sales. Corn farmers have joined forces with the biofuel industry (“Petitioners”) to ask the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for a new hearing on a ruling that struck down the EPA’s 2019 decision to allow year-round E15 sales.  Earlier this year, the same D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion that ruled the legislative text in the law supporting the biofuel mandate does not support the Trump administration’s regulatory waiver that allowed E15 to be sold during the summer months. In their petition, Petitioners argue that the D.C. Circuit Court made “significant legal errors.”  Petitioners contend that the court should rehear the case because the intent behind the nation’s biofuel mandate is better served by the sale of E15 through the summer months because it is less volatile, has less evaporative emissions, and is overall better for the environment than other fuel sources.  Petitioners also believe the court’s original decision deprives American drivers the choice of lower carbon emitting options at the gas pump.

Monsanto asks Supreme Court to review Ninth Circuit’s Roundup Decision.  In its petition to the Supreme Court of the United States Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”) asked the Supreme Court to review the $25 million decision rendered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  In that decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) did not preempt, or otherwise prevent, the plaintiff from raising California failure-to-warn claims on Roundup products and allowed plaintiff to introduce expert testimony that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.  In trial, the plaintiff argued that Monsanto violated California’s labeling requirements by not including a warning on the Roundup label that glyphosate, which is found in Roundup, causes cancer.  Monsanto argues that FIFRA expressly preempts any state law that imposes a different labeling or packaging requirement.  Under FIFRA, Monsanto argues that the EPA did not require Monsanto to include a cancer warning on its Roundup label.  Therefore, Monsanto maintains, that because California law differed from FIFRA, Monsanto was not required to follow California law when it came to labeling its Roundup product.  Secondly, the Ninth Circuit allowed plaintiff to present expert evidence that glyphosate could cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the general public and that glyphosate caused the plaintiff’s lymphoma.  Monsanto contends that the lower courts have distorted established precedent by allowing the expert testimony because the testimony is not based on generally accepted scientific principles and the scientific community has consistently found that glyphosate does not cause cancer in humans.    

USDA working to protect nation’s dairy industry.  The USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (“AMS”) has struck a deal with the European Union (“EU”) to satisfy the EU’s new import requirements on U.S. dairy.  The EU will require new health certificates for U.S. dairy products exported to the EU to verify that the U.S. milk used for products exported to the EU is sourced from establishments regulated under the Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk Ordinance or the USDA AMS Milk for Manufacturing Purposes.  Officials representing the U.S. Dairy Export Council and International Dairy Foods Association claim that the deal will allow U.S. producers to comply with the EU’s mandates while also satisfying the concerns within the American dairy industry.  The deal pushes back the EU’s deadline for new health certificates to January 15, 2022, to allow U.S. producers and exporters enough time to bring their products into compliance.  The USDA also announcedthat it is providing around $350 million to compensate dairy producers who lost revenue because of market disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a change to the federal pricing formula under the 2018 farm bill.  Additional details are available at the AMS Dairy Program website.

Tale as old as time.  An Ohio appeals court recently decided a dispute between neighbors about a driveway easement.  The driveway in dispute is shared by both neighbors to access their detached garages. Defendants used the driveway to access their garage and then the driveway extends past the Defendants’ garage onto Plaintiff’s property and ends at Plaintiff’s garage.  The dispute arose after Defendants built a parking pad behind their garage and used parts of the driveway they never used before to access the parking pad.  The original easement to the driveway was granted by very broad and general language in a 1918 deed, when the property was divided into two separate parcels.  In 1997, a Perpetual Easement and Maintenance Agreement (“Agreement”) was entered into by the two previous property owners.  The Agreement was much more specific than the 1918 deed and specifically showed how far the easement ran and what portions of the driveway could be used by both parties.  The 1997 Agreement did not allow for Defendants to use the portion of the driveway necessary to access their parking pad.  Plaintiffs argue that the 1997 Agreement controls the extent of the easement, whereas Defendants argue that the broad general language in the 1918 deed grants them authority to use the whole length of the driveway.  The Court found the more specific 1997 Agreement to be controlling and ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs.   The Court reasoned that the 1918 deed creates an ambiguity as to the extent of the easement and there is no way of knowing what the original driveway looked like or how it was used.  The Court concluded that the 1997 Agreement does not contradict or invalidate the 1918 deed, rather the 1997 Agreement puts specific parameters on the existing easement and does not violate any Ohio law.  The Defendants were found liable for trespass onto the Plaintiffs’ property and is expected to pay $27,500 in damages.  The lesson to be learned from all of this?  Make sure your easements are as specific and detailed as possible to ensure that all parties are in compliance with the law.

As planting season draws to a close, new agricultural issues are sprouting up across the country.  This edition of the Ag Law Harvest brings you federal court cases, international commodity news, and new program benefits affecting the agriculture industry. 

Pork processing plants told to hold their horses.  The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”) is not going to appeal a federal court’s ruling that requires the nation’s hog processing facilities to operate at slower line speeds.  On March 31, 2021, a federal judge in Minnesota vacated a portion of the USDA’s 2019 “New Swine Slaughter Inspection System” that eliminated evisceration line speed limits.  The court held that the USDA had violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it failed to take into consideration the impact the new rule would have on the health and safety of plant workers.  The court, however, only vacated the provisions of the new rule relating to line speeds, all other provisions of the rule were not affected.  Proponents of the new rule claim that the rule was well researched and was years in the making.  Further, proponents argue that worker safety was taken into consideration before adopting the rule and that the court’s decision will cost the pork industry millions.  The federal court stayed the order for 90 days to give the USDA and impacted plants time to adjust to the ruling.  All affected entities should prepare to revert to a maximum line speed of 1,106 head per hour starting June 30, 2021. 

Beef under (cyber)attack.  Over the Memorial Day weekend, JBS SA, the largest meat producer globally, was forced to shut down all of its U.S. beef plants which is responsible for nearly 25% of the American beef market.  JBS plants in Australia and Canada were also affected.  The reason for the shut down?  Over the weekend, JBS’ computer networks were infiltrated by unknown ransomware.  The USDA released a statement showing its commitment to working with JBS, the White House, Department of Homeland Security, and others to monitor the situation.  The ransomware attack comes on the heels of the Colonial Pipeline cyber-attack, leading many to wonder who is next.  As part of its effort, the USDA has been in touch with meat processors across the country to ensure they are aware of the situation and asking them to accommodate additional capacity, if possible.  The impact of the cyber-attack may include a supply chain shortage in the United States, a hike in beef prices at the grocery store, and a renewed push to regulate other U.S. industries to prevent future cyber-attacks. 

Texas has a new tool to help combat feral hogs.  Texas Agriculture Commissioner, Sid Miller, announced a new tool in their war against feral hogs within the state.  HogStop, a new hog contraceptive bait enters the market this week.  HogStop is being released in hopes of curbing the growth of the feral hog population.  According to recent reports, the feral hog population in Texas has grown to over 2.6 million.  It is estimated that the feral hogs in Texas have been responsible for $52 million in damage.  HogStop is an all-natural contraceptive bait that targets the male hog’s ability to reproduce.  HogStop is considered a 25(b) pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), which allows Texas to use it without registering the product.  Commissioner Miller thinks HogStop is a more humane way to curb the feral hog population in Texas and hopes that it is the answer to controlling the impact that feral hogs have on farmers and ranchers.  More information about HogStop can be found at their website at www.hogstop.com. 

USDA announces premium benefit for cover crops.  Most farmers who have coverage under a crop insurance policy are eligible for a premium benefit from the USDA if they planted cover crops this spring.  The USDA’s Risk Management Agency (“RMA”) announced that producers who insured their spring crop and planted a qualifying cover crop during the 2021 crop year are eligible for a $5 per acre premium benefit.  However, farmers cannot receive more than the amount of their insurance premium owed.  Certain policies are not eligible for the benefit because those policies have underlying coverage that already receive the benefit or are not designed to be reported in a manner consistent with the Report of Acreage form (FSA-578).  All cover crops reportable to the Farm Service Agency (“FSA”) including, cereals and other grasses, legumes, brassicas and other non-legume broadleaves, and mixtures of two or more cover crop species planted at the same time, are eligible for the benefit.  To receive the benefit, farmers must file a Report of Acreage form (FSA-578) for cover crops with the FSA by June 15, 2021.  To file the form, farmers must contact and make an appointment with their local USDA Service Center.  More information can be found at https://www.farmers.gov/pandemic-assistance/cover-crops.

Federal court vacates prior administration’s small refinery exemptions.  The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order vacating the EPA’s January 2021 small refinery exemptions issued under the Trump administration and sent the case back to the EPA for further proceedings that are consistent with the Tenth Circuit’s holding in Renewable Fuels Association v. EPA.  The Tenth Circuit held that the EPA may only grant a small refinery exemption if “disproportionate economic hardship” is caused by complying with Renewable Fuel Standards. The EPA admitted that such economic hardship may not have existed with a few of the exemptions granted and asked the court to send the case back to them for further review.  The order granted by the Tenth Circuit acknowledged the agency’s concession and noted that the EPA’s motion to vacate was unopposed by the plaintiff refineries.  

Michigan dairy farm penalized for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System violations.  A federal district court in Michigan issued a decision affirming a consent decree between a Michigan dairy farm and the EPA.  According to the complaint, the dairy farm failed to comply with two National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits issued under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.  The violations include improper discharges, deficient maintenance and operation of waste storage facilities, failing to report discharges, failing to abide by its NPDES land application requirements, and incomplete recordkeeping.  The farm is required to pay a penalty of $33,750, assess and remedy its waste storage facilities, and implement proper land application and reporting procedures.  The farm also faces potential penalties for failing to implement any remedial measures in a timely fashion.