Preview:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE Thomas C. Bigley, Jr. Jason H. Guthrie Columbus, IN

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT R. Thomas Bodkin Douglas A. Welp Evansville, IN Jeffrey L. Beck Columbus, IN Robert Heidorn Evansville, IN

In the

Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________ No. 03S01-0401-CV-00009 LOUISVILLE & INDIANA RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee (Plaintiff below), v. INDIANA GAS COMPANY, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant (Defendant below). _________________________________ Appeal from the Bartholomew Superior Court, No. 03D02-0004-CP-50 The Honorable Kathleen Tighe Coriden, Judge _________________________________ On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 03A01-0210-CV-384 _________________________________ June 15, 2005 Shepard, Chief Justice.

Almost continually from the time of statehood, building Indiana's economy has necessitated constructing networks for the transport of people and product, energy and communications. This litigation centers on one of perhaps thousands of points at which these

1

networks intersect. A railroad contends that a gas company which has laid pipe along a county road that crosses the tracks owes rent to the railroad for passing underneath. We conclude that rent is not owed.

Facts and Case History

The basic facts are not controverted.

County Roads 550 North and 400 South in

Bartholomew County each cross tracks of the Louisville & Indiana Railroad Company ("Railroad"). These tracks rest on fee or right-of-way owned by the Railroad. Indiana Gas Company, Inc. ("Indiana Gas"), a public utility, installed gas pipelines following the county right-of-way along the two roads, thus crossing under the Railroad's tracks. The Railroad says that Indiana Gas installed the pipe without consent from or compensation to the Railroad.

The Railroad filed a four-count complaint: (1) trespass; (2) license rent; (3) quantum meruit; and (4) quantum valebant. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the trespass and license rent claims. The trial court concluded that the Railroad owned an easement and held that one could not by definition commit trespass against the holder of an easement. Thus, it granted partial summary judgment in favor of Indiana Gas on the trespass claim. The court dismissed the remainder of the case based on its conclusion that jurisdiction over the Railroad's claims otherwise lay with the Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission under Indiana Code

Download Louisville & Indiana Railroad Company v. Indiana Gas Company.pdf

Indiana Law