Originally from:

Journal of American Arbitration (JAA) - Vol. 1, No. 2

Preview Page

ARTICLES

Bowen v. Amoco Pipeline Co.: The Tenth Circuit Holds that Parties May Not Contractually Expand FAA Standards of Judicial Review
By Amanda Spears

I. INTRODUCTION
In 1993, Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Bowen discovered an oily sheen on a
creek that ran through property they owned in Oklahoma.1 Mr. Bowen
contacted the Pollution Control Division of the Oklahoma Corporate
Commission (OCC) and Amoco and Koch, two companies that owned
pipelines crossing the creek.2 The OCC conducted an investigation and
concluded, by process of elimination, that the likely source of the creek
contaminant was one of the pipelines.3 The OCC recommended that both
companies uncover the portion of the pipelines that crossed the creek in
order to pinpoint the source of contamination.4
Amoco denied responsibility and refused to follow the OCC’s
recommendation to strip its lines and investigate.5 Koch, however,
conducted an investigation and in 1997 reported that its lines were not
the source of the problem, but singled out one of Amoco’s pipelines as
the cause of the contamination.6 After the report was released, Amoco
continued to deny responsibility and in 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Bowen filed a
cause of action against the company in federal district court, claiming
damages to real property, nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, breach
of contract, and exemplary damages.7
Amoco sought to stay the court proceeding by invoking the
arbitration clause contained in the original contract agreement of 1918,
which granted the pipeline easement on the property.8 The court agreed