Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Statute Of Limitations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears argument over when mining-subsidence clock starts to run
Summary
In a longwall mining dispute, petitioners argued the enforcement statute has no ordinary tort limitations period and that continuing subsidence or failure to repair restarts the clock; defendants said notice in May 2018 triggered limitations and that mining activity ceased in 2017.
Jamie Bordes, counsel for petitioners Jason and Crystal Wilhelm, told the court the action seeks enforcement of a remedial mining-subsidence statute and "there is no statute of limitations for an act of this nature," arguing the harm continues underground and that the proper trigger is either continued failure to repair or the last subsidence event. Bordes pointed the court to an expert affidavit (Dr. Bechtel) the petitioners say shows additional subsidence after the date the defendants assert the homeowners knew of damage.
Bridal Altmaier, counsel for Tunnel Ridge, argued that the operative event is the mining activity and that the plaintiffs admitted notice as early as May 2018; he said the longwall machine passed in 2017 and reentry was impossible, urging the court to treat the filing as untimely if a limitations period applies. "I'm very uncomfortable being in a case where I'm attempting to enforce, the statute limitations," Altmaier said, explaining the industry practice and timing maps showing operations ceased.
Judges probed whether continuing damage restarts a limitations period or whether notice/knowledge of damage is the trigger, and they asked for authorities on equitable tolling and estoppel. Counsel debated federal guidance cited by one side and whether the action is a private enforcement under chapter 22 or an enforcement action by the state; the matter was submitted after final remarks.
