In 2008, farmer leased a tract of land from landowner, where farmer operated a farm. In 2010, Landowner sold Keystone an easement, which allowed Keystone to build an underground pipeline across farm. When the construction project reached farm in 2012, farmer signed a release, in return for money, that released Keystone from any damages that Keystone caused to farmer’s 2012 crop. The 2012 Release, however, did not include damages that farmer might suffer after 2012.

When Keystone failed to complete its work on its pipeline across farm by year-end 2012, farmer and Keystone mutually agreed to the terms memorialized in a second release, the 2013 Release. Unlike the 2012 Release, the 2013 Release is broader in its scope, as it contains no language limiting the scope of the release to farmer’s 2013 crop.  In December 2013, Landowner terminated farmer’s lease for nonpayment of rent. Approximately one year later, farmer sued Keystone for damages, which he alleged were related to Keystone’s failure to restore the surface on his farm to the condition it was in prior to the date that Keystone built a pipeline across his farm. According to farmer’s petition, Keystone’s failure to properly restore the surface of his farm to its prior condition made it impossible for him to farm the tract. Farmer’s petition includes five theories of recovery: (1) inverse condemnation; (2) breach of agreement; (3) tortious interference with his lease; (4) negligence; and (5) various additional theories sounding in fraud.