Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Fees Surface Damage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to clarify recovery of expert-witness fees in oil and gas suits
Summary
Senate Bill 2335 would clarify that landowners may recover reasonable expert witness fees and other costs in surface-damage litigation; proponents said the change restores a long‑standing intent, while industry asked for additional discussion and proposed alternative remedies.
Senate Bill 2335, introduced by Sen. Jeff Magrum, would authorize courts to award costs, disbursements and "reasonable expert witness fees" to prevailing surface owners in litigation tied to oil and gas surface damage claims when the owner obtains more in compensation than the developer offered.
Supporters told the committee the bill clarifies an area of confusion created when similar cases proceed in federal court. Troy (Chairman, Northwest Landowners Association) described instances in which federal courts, applying federal rules, declined to award expert witness fees even when state law and intent supported them. He said the result makes it economically unrealistic for a landowner to hire the appraisers and experts necessary to contest low offers.
Jackie Hall, appearing for the North Dakota Association for Justice, asked the committee to amend the bill to add explicit language for recoverable "costs and fees," arguing the change would better align the statute with existing practice and court expectations.
The North Dakota Petroleum Council opposed the bill as presented, saying North Dakota already has statutes addressing costs and that federal courts operate under federal rules which do not always permit recovery of expert fees. Todd Kranda, attorney and lobbyist for the Petroleum Council, urged additional work between proponents and industry to develop a process that encourages early appraisal and settlement instead of addressing the issue solely through statutory fee-shifting.
Committee discussion acknowledged the federal/state interplay in these cases and several legislators and counsel signaled interest in additional negotiations. The committee set the bill aside pending further talks and possible amendment; no committee vote was taken during the hearing.
