Sometimes what juries give, the Supreme Judicial Court takes away, as the hapless owner of a service station near the Sagamore Bridge learned last month in Sorenti Bros. Inc. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Veteran weekend drivers can remember when, not long ago, crossing the Cape Cod Canal via the Sagamore Bridge required an encounter with the dreaded Sagamore Rotary, a circular traffic jam that tested the patience of the calmest motorist. The rotary had few friends, but one of them was Sorenti Bros. Inc., owner of a service station easily accessible from the rotary. Although Sorenti’s property was near the rotary, it did not abut or directly connect to it.
To improve traffic flow, the commonwealth built the Sagamore Flyover, a new, limited-access highway that eliminated the rotary and opened direct access from the Sagamore Bridge to Route 3. The flyover required the commonwealth to take nearby land by eminent domain, including some of Sorenti’s land. The commonwealth paid Sorenti $1.7 million for the land taking. However, the rotary closure removed convenient access to Sorenti’s service station, for which the commonwealth offered Sorenti no compensation.
Sorenti sued the commonwealth in Superior Court in 2006, claiming additional compensation because the Sagamore Flyover impaired access to its property. Sorenti relied on two statutes to support this claim; namely, Section 7C and Section 12 of chapter 81 of the Massachusetts General Laws. Section 7C applies where the commonwealth lays out a limited-access highway within an existing road, so that abutting landowners lose their access to the road. Under such circumstances, Section 7C allows abutters to claim compensation for their loss of access. Section 12 allows landowners to recover if their land is actually taken by the commonwealth, and also if none of their land is taken, but they suffer “special and peculiar injury … as a result of other takings or a public improvement project.” At trial, the Superior Court allowed Sorenti to advance arguments on both statutes, and the jury awarded Sorenti an additional $3 million including interests and costs. After the Appeals Court upheld the jury award, the commonwealth appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court.
The SJC agreed with the commonwealth, rejecting Sorenti’s claims under both statutes. As to Section 7C, the SJC pointed out that the layout of a limited access highway like the Sagamore Flyover must cause an abutting landowner to lose access to the preexisting road, in order for the landowner to claim compensation. Sorenti’s property did not abut the rotary, so the SJC easily dismissed Sorenti’s claim for additional compensation under Section 7C because of the rotary closure.
Sorenti’s argument under Section 12 fared no better. The SJC cited earlier cases holding that landowners cannot claim compensation solely because their access becomes less convenient, if they retain “reasonable and appropriate access” after the taking. The SJC recognized that Sorenti had lost its relatively easy highway access when the rotary was closed. However, according to the SJC, other roads provided reasonable and appropriate access for Sorenti. Because such access remained, the SJC ruled that the trial court should not have referred the issue to the jury, and the commonwealth should have prevailed at trial as a matter of law.
The SJC overruled the $3 million judgment for Sorenti, and remanded the case to the Superior Court. Sorenti can seek additional compensation in Superior Court for its land taken for the Sagamore Flyover, but its claim to compensation for the change in access seems long gone, like the Sagamore Rotary.
Christopher R. Vaccaro is a partner at Looney & Grossman LLP in Boston. His email address is cvaccaro@lgllp.com.
