Hartsville Physician Wins $540,000 Verdict
Against Progress Energy
By Jim Faile
Managing Editor
May 12, 2006
DARLINGTON — Dr. Pickens Moyd said he hopes a jury’s decision against Progress Energy in a condemnation case involving his family-owned farm sends a message to small landowners around the state to stand up for their rights and for what is fair.
A Darlington County jury last Friday returned a $540,000 verdict against the Raleigh, N.C.-based utility company in a case involving a 32-mile high voltage transmission line the utility plans to run through Darlington County into Florence County.
The verdict — one of the largest of its kind ever in South Carolina — followed three and a half days of testimony in the case.
A spokesman for Progress Energy said Wednesday the company has made no decision about whether it will appeal the verdict.
“We are very pleased,” said Moyd, 76, a surgeon who has practiced in Hartsville for 40 years. “Our family farm has been our dream, and we never wanted to sell any part of it to the power company.”
“Perhaps this fair-minded jury has also set a precedent so that in the future, Progress Energy will be forced to pay for damages they do to countless small, relatively helpless landowners from whom they get land,” Moyd said.
In 2002, Progress Energy notified Moyd and his wife that it intended to run the new power line through the Moyds’ family farm, located outside of Hartsville. According to their attorneys, the Moyds had been subjected to two earlier public utility easements and objected to an additional easement for the Progress Energy line.
The company plans to build the line from its Darlington County turbine plant to its substation in Florence. Company officials say the line is necessary to meet the growing demand for electrical power in Progress Energy’s service area in the Pee Dee region. Officials also say construction of the transmission line will also give an added boost to economic development efforts in the region.
Despite the family’s objections, Progress Energy initiated condemnation procedures to obtain three easements across the Moyd family property. “Naturally, I was distressed when I learned Progress Energy had decided to take a third route across our farm for a public utility,” Moyd said. “This brings the total for various easements to over 50 acres of our land.”
The company offered Moyd $31,640 for the easements, not including timber, according to Moyd’s attorneys. Moyd refused and said the company later upped its offer to $36,000.
State law gives electric power utilities the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain in cases where they require easements from property owners.
The Moyds rejected Progress Energy’s offer and took the case to court.
“This jury, in their wisdom, recognized the unfairness of Progress Energy’s offer for damages, and after careful consideration awarded damages approximately 15 times Progress Energy’s best offer,” Moyd said. “I am delighted these jurors forced Progress Energy to pay us a fair price by calculating the value of our farm before they took our property and its value after they went across it.”
Moyd said the issue all along was one of basic fairness. “We feel this jury not only made sure Progress Energy treated my family fairly, but perhaps also set a precedent so other small landowners will not feel forced to give up their family farms without being fairly compensated for what the land was worth before, then after the power company comes across it,” he said.
“I am personally delighted to think that this verdict can help countless farmers in our area get a fair price for their land and not simply feel they must accept any price the power company offers them.”
Progress Energy spokesman Mike Hughes declined to comment on specifics regarding the verdict, citing the possibility of an appeal.
But he did say that during the process that led to the company’s selection of a route Progress Energy considered a number of factors. In the spring of 2002, the company held two informational meetings for the public about the project, one in Florence County and one in Darlington County. Those meetings were designed to give information to affected property owners as well as to gather information from property owners, he said.
The company evaluated more than 50 possible routes and selected what officials considered the best route for the line based in large part on the information gathered from those meetings, he said. The S.C. Public Service Commission later approved the chosen route, he said.
Hughes said that in some cases, utility companies are forced to fall back on the power of eminent domain and condemnation proceedings to obtain easements from property owners, and he said that was the case in this situation.
He said easement values paid by the company are based on comparable sale value and are determined by an independent assessor who assesses the value of the affected property. “Our responsibility is to provide a fair assessment, but not to overpay,” Hughes said. “Obviously, the jury felt that our award was not appropriate. Now, we’ve got to find some way to move forward with this project.”
The company has 10 days from the date of the verdict to decide if it will appeal, Hughes said.
Moyd was represented by Hartsville attorney Martin S. Driggers of Driggers & Moyd, where Moyd’s son practices law, and by J. Edward Bell III of the Bell Legal Group of Georgetown.
