Biffle v. Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative, No. 15-2964 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs, a class of landowners subject to Sho-Me's easements, filed suit against Sho-Me and Tech for trespass and unjust enrichment after the companies used fiber-optic cable for commercial telecommunications. The district court certified the class and granted it summary judgment on liability. A jury trial was held on the issue of damages and the jury awarded plaintiffs over $79 million. The court concluded that Sho-Me and Tech's use exceeded the scope of the easements. The court explained that, under Missouri law, the companies exceeded their rights by using the fiber-optic cable for unauthorized purposes and thus their use became a trespass. The court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to identify any Missouri cases recognizing unjust enrichment as a remedy for unauthorized land use. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the unjust enrichment claim. The court noted that, on remand, plaintiffs may choose to pursue damages on their trespass claim. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Loken and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Property law. Where defendant Sho-me Power had an easement which gave it the right to install and use fiber-optic cables for internal communications related to supplying electricity in connection with the operations covered by the initial easement, the easements did not give it and defendant Sho-Me Tech the right to use the fiber-optic cables installed on easement land for commercial telecommunications purposes unrelated to supplying electricity; this use constituted a trespass under Missouri law; however, the district court erred in finding the plaintiffs could use the theory of unjust-enrichment to recover damages for the trespass, and the jury award of damages for unjust enrichment is vacated; on remand, the landowner plaintiffs may chose to pursue damages on their trespass claim; the district court did not abuse its discretion by certifying a class of landowners in this matter.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.