Feb 11, 2025 By Mike Jones 3 min read

A Washington County judge has determined that Sunoco Pipeline did not have eminent domain powers when workers persuaded a Nottingham Township couple – and possibly many others – to sign over easement rights to the company in 2013 while building the Mariner East pipeline through their property.

Judge Brandon Neuman’s memo and order Friday declined to declare a summary judgment in favor of Bradley and Amy Simon in connection with their lawsuit filed in Washington County Court of Common Pleas in 2015, although it appeared to pave the way for the matter to go to trial soon and let a jury decide on the decade-old case.

The lawsuit filed against Sunoco Pipeline, Sunoco Logistics, Percheron Field Services and several project managers contended the companies falsely claimed they had eminent domain rights to coerce landowners into permitting pipeline construction on their properties. But Neuman found that Sunoco “did not possess eminent domain powers” in 2013 when the company apparently claimed it had that authority and would seize the land before workers persuaded the Simons into allowing easements on their 21-acre property on Lakeview Lane.

In September 2013, the couple accepted $89,500 from Sunoco for easement of their property and damages, but they later learned that the company had not been granted eminent domain authority until July 2014. By then, construction on the Mariner East project had already begun on their land, causing soil erosion and muddy runoff that damaged a 3-acre pond on the property, the lawsuit states.

“We want to get to a jury,” said attorney John Smith, who is representing the Simons. “We have to prove those elements to the jury. The judge said they didn’t have (eminent domain). … It’s been a long, sorted, procedural way.”

Smith said Sunoco claimed to be acting as a public utility at the time, but it was a corporation so it did not have eminent domain powers. However, since it made such claims in filings, the company was able to get court orders at the time on multiple other properties to utilize eminent domain, Smith said, which could open the litigation to numerous other parties.

“We’re not the only ones,” he said.

He added that Nottingham Township officials even posted on their municipal website that Sunoco did not have eminent domain powers, but attorneys representing the company demanded they take that information down in March 2013.

“The bigger problem for (the defendants) is it’s a seminal issue because they can’t argue to a jury that they didn’t have eminent domain,” Smith said of how the company openly made the claim despite allegedly knowing that it was incorrect. “So that case is based on fraud and material misrepresentation.”

Attorneys for Sunoco Pipeline, Sunoco Corp. and Percheron Field Services either could not be reached by phone Monday or declined comment on the case due to pending litigation.

It’s unclear why the lawsuit has taken as long as it has to proceed to its current status. Neuman has scheduled a March 14 status conference to discuss mediation options before a possible jury trial could begin at a later date.