396 Harrington v. Magellan Pipeline Co., L.P

Richard F. Brown

 
The following is not a legal opinion.  You should consult your attorney if the case may be of significance to you.
 
Harrington v. Magellan Pipeline Co., L.P., 10-09-00131-CV, 2011 WL 6225276 (Tex. App.—Waco Dec. 14, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.), held that a pipeline easement and subsequent assignment were ambiguous as to whether the easement and assignment conveyed the right to lay multiple pipelines in the same ditch or at multiple locations.  The parties aligned as the successors to the original Grantor and Grantee.  “The 1919 easement granted ‘the right of way, or easement and privilege, to lay, repair, maintain, operate and remove pipelines for the transportation of oil or any of its products or other fluids or substances . . . over and through my lands.’”  Apparently, there was a provision for additional compensation for any additional pipelines.  Grantor claimed the easement granted a single right of way corresponding with the first pipeline installed by Grantee.  Grantee argued the easement provided for multiple rights of way.
 
The court reasoned that although “[a] grant of right of way set out in general terms without specifying the exact place for its location becomes fixed and certain when the pipeline is laid,” because this easement granted a single right of way but provided for multiple pipelines and separate compensation for each additional pipeline laid, it was ambiguous.  The easement was ambiguous as to whether the original grantor intended to allow additional pipelines to be laid in any location and in any direction.
 
Grantor also claimed that a 1997 assignment of the easement to Grantee did not allow Grantee to lay additional pipelines.  The assignment provided in part:
 
[Assignor] grants, sells, conveys, transfers, and assigns . . . all of Assignor’s right, title and interest in and to the right-of-way agreements, easements, permits and grants which in any way relate to and accommodate Grantor’s crude oil pipeline system commonly known as the Telescope pipeline . . . . Assignor retains for itself, its successors and assigns, all of its interest in and to said right-of-way agreements, easements, permits and grants which in any way relate to and accommodate Assignor’s [other] pipelines. It is understood and agreed that the rights and interest herein conveyed are for one pipeline only . . . [I]t is understood that neither party will have any interest whatsoever in the right-of-way agreements, easements, permits or grants as each pertains to the other party’s pipelines.  It is the intention of both Assignor and Assignee that each shall have the full use and enjoyment of all of the rights conveyed by said right-of-way agreements, easements, permits and grants, insofar as such rights pertain to each party’s respective pipelines.
 
Grantor contended only one pipeline was assigned, but Grantee contended it acquired equal rights to the 1919 easement, which included the right to lay multiple pipelines at multiple locations.  The court concluded that because the assignment was capable of more than one meaning, it was ambiguous.
 
The significance of this case is the court’s holding that an easement granting the right to lay multiple pipelines “over and through [Grantor’s] lands” is ambiguous as to whether it means multiple pipelines in the same ditch as the first pipeline, or multiple pipelines at different locations and in different directions on Grantor’s lands.