CJ-2026-00051 - Jerry D. Bewley and Angela R. Bewley v. Latigo Drilling Corp.

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: the phrase “toxic waste spill” should never appear in the same sentence as “my backyard.” But for Jerry and Angela Bewley of Grady County, Oklahoma, that nightmare became a reality—thanks, allegedly, to Latigo Drilling Corp., a company that was supposed to be pulling oil from the ground, not poisoning it. According to the Bewleys, Latigo didn’t just have a little leaky pipe situation—they unleashed a full-on environmental mess on the couple’s property, dumping oil, gas, and saltwater like it was a frat house keg party, except instead of beer, it was brine that could kill crops, ruin soil, and probably give your dog a rash just by looking at it. And now? The Bewleys want $75,000 in damages, punitive damages (because someone needs to really feel bad), and a jury trial—because nothing says “I’ve been wronged” like demanding your day in court with twelve of your least biased peers.

So who are these people? Jerry and Angela Bewley aren’t oil barons or environmental activists with a Netflix docuseries. They’re just folks who own a plot of land in rural Oklahoma—Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 7 West, if you’re into surveying (and honestly, bless you if you are). They use their property the way a lot of Oklahomans do: growing crops, enjoying the outdoors, probably barbecuing on weekends, and maybe letting the dog chase the occasional squirrel. It’s a quiet life, the kind where the biggest drama is whether the corn’s gonna make it through the drought. But then along comes Latigo Drilling Corp., a for-profit Oklahoma-based company that’s in the business of poking holes in the earth to pull out oil and gas. And somewhere in that process, things went sideways—literally and figuratively—because Latigo wasn’t just drilling. They were operating on the Bewleys’ land as a mineral lessee, meaning they had the legal right to extract what’s under the surface. But—and this is a big but—they didn’t have the right to turn the surface into a toxic wasteland. That’s like being invited to a potluck and showing up with a chainsaw.

Now, here’s how this whole mess unfolded. According to the lawsuit, Latigo didn’t just have one minor spill. They had multiple incidents where oil, gas, saltwater, and “other deleterious substances” escaped from their wells, pipelines, and tank batteries—basically the oilfield version of a septic tank and a gas station having a messy divorce. The kicker? A pipeline leak specifically dumped saltwater onto the Bewleys’ land. Now, if you’re thinking, “Saltwater? How bad could that be?”—buddy, this isn’t ocean water. We’re talking about produced water, a byproduct of oil drilling that’s loaded with salt, heavy metals, and chemicals that make your soil about as fertile as a parking lot. This stuff doesn’t just wash away. It kills vegetation, poisons the ground, and can linger for years. And Latigo didn’t just let it happen—they allegedly failed to clean it up properly, and in some cases, made things worse during their so-called “remediation.” So not only did they spill toxic gunk on someone else’s property, but their cleanup crew apparently treated the land like a toddler’s art project: more mess, less progress.

Which brings us to why they’re in court. The Bewleys aren’t just mad—they’re legally furious. They’ve filed three major claims, and each one is like a different flavor of “you messed up.” First up: nuisance. In legal terms, a nuisance isn’t just your neighbor’s yappy Pomeranian. It’s when someone’s actions unreasonably interfere with your ability to enjoy your property. And according to the Bewleys, Latigo turned their farm into an industrial hazard zone—contaminating the soil, killing crops, and making parts of the land unusable. That’s not just a nuisance. That’s a full eviction notice from Mother Nature. Second claim: trespass. Now, you might think trespassing means someone walking across your lawn without permission. But in property law, it also covers when someone sends something onto your land without consent—like, say, a pipeline full of saltwater. Latigo didn’t ask. They didn’t warn. They just… leaked. And that, the Bewleys argue, is trespassing with a side of environmental disrespect. Third claim: negligence. This one’s the big daddy. It means Latigo had a duty to operate safely, they failed to do so, and people got hurt—or in this case, land got wrecked. The filing even suggests Latigo might’ve violated state laws and regulations, which could mean negligence per se—a legal shortcut that says, “You broke the rules, so you’re automatically on the hook.” Ouch.

So what do the Bewleys want? $75,000—plus punitive damages, attorney fees, and the cost to restore their land. Is $75,000 a lot? For a single pipeline leak? Maybe not. For a recurring environmental disaster that’s ruined crops, damaged soil, and turned part of your property into a hazmat zone? Actually, it might be low. Cleanup costs for saltwater contamination can run into the tens of thousands, and if the land’s value has dropped, that adds up fast. Plus, there’s the intangible stuff: the stress, the lost weekends, the fact that you can’t just let your grandkids play outside without worrying about toxic residue. That’s not nothing. And punitive damages? Those aren’t about making the Bewleys whole—they’re about making Latigo hurt. They’re the legal equivalent of a slap on the wrist… with a brick. The message is clear: if you’re gonna drill, drill responsibly. If you’re gonna mess up, at least clean it up. Don’t leave a family’s livelihood in the dirt.

Our take? Look, oil and gas operations are part of life in Oklahoma. They’re jobs, they’re revenue, they’re part of the state’s identity. But that doesn’t give companies a free pass to treat private land like a dumping ground. The most absurd part of this case isn’t even the spill—it’s the remediation that allegedly made things worse. It’s like if your plumber came to fix a leak and then flooded your basement “trying to help.” And yet, here we are. The Bewleys aren’t asking for a mansion or a yacht. They just want their land back—the way it was before Latigo turned it into a science experiment gone wrong. We’re rooting for them. Not because we hate oil companies, but because we believe in basic accountability. If you’re gonna drill under someone’s cornfield, the least you can do is not turn it into a wasteland. And if you do? You pay. In full. With interest. And maybe, just maybe, a sincere apology. (But let’s not get crazy.)

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

DISTRICT COURT, OKLAHOMA

Filing Attorney

Wes Johnston

JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Jerry D. Bewley and Angela R. Bewley individual
Rep: Wes Johnston

Defendants

Latigo Drilling Corp. business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	nuisance	Defendant created and maintained a nuisance on the Plaintiffs' property
2	trespass	Defendant trespassed on the Plaintiffs' property
3	negligence	Defendant was negligent in its oil and gas operations

Petition Text

1,081 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRADY COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA JERRY D. BEWLEY and ANGELA R. BEWLEY, Plaintiffs, v. LATIGO DRILLING CORP., Defendant. PETITION Plaintiffs, Jerry D. Bewley and Angela R. Bewley, for their cause of action against the Defendant, Latigo Drilling Corp., state and allege as follows: BACKGROUND 1. Plaintiffs, Jerry D. Bewley and Angela R. Bewley, own certain real property located in Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 7 West, Grady County, Oklahoma (the “Property”). 2. The Plaintiffs use the Property for raising crops and other personal and recreational uses. 3. Defendant, Latigo Drilling Corp., is a for-profit corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma. 4. The Defendant is engaged in the business of oil and gas production in Grady County, Oklahoma. 5. As such, the Defendant is the operator of an oil and gas well, pipelines, and other oilfield equipment located on Plaintiffs’ Property. 6. As a mineral lessee, the Defendant is under a non-delegable duty to avoid causing harm to a surface owner’s property, including the Plaintiffs’ Property. 7. During the course of its oil and gas operations, the Defendant on several occasions discharged and released oil, gas, saltwater and/or other deleterious substances from the well, pipelines, tank battery and/or other oilfield equipment to the Property. In particular, the Defendant had a pipeline leak which discharged saltwater to the Property. This discharge as well as the Defendant’s other acts and releases impacted the vegetation, soils, surface and subsurface of the Property. 10. The Defendant has failed to properly and adequately remediate the impacts from the releases to the Property and caused additional damages during its efforts to remediate the saltwater pipeline leak. NUISANCE 11. The Defendant has created and/or maintained a nuisance as follows: a. In failing to properly maintain the wells, pipelines, tank batteries and/or other oilfield equipment in such a manner as to prevent the contamination and pollution of the Property; b. In allowing oil, gas, saltwater and/or other deleterious substances from the operations to contaminate and pollute the vegetation, soils, surface, subsurface, surface waters and groundwater of the Property; d. In using more of the surface of the Property than is reasonably necessary for longer than is reasonably necessary for their oil and gas operations; e. Other acts or omissions of Defendant as may be established by evidence presented at trial. 12. The nuisance created and maintained by the Defendant on the Plaintiffs’ Property has unreasonably interfered with, and continues to unreasonably interfere with, Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of the Property for personal, agricultural and farming purposes as follows: a. The Plaintiffs have been deprived of the use and enjoyment of portions of the surface of the Property for personal and agricultural purposes; b. The Plaintiffs sustained agricultural losses; c. The Property has sustained temporary injuries occurring during the remediation process; and d. As a result of the Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered personal annoyance, inconvenience and discomfort; and e. Other injuries as may be established by evidence presented at trial. 13. The acts and omissions of the Defendant were committed in violation of applicable laws, statutes and regulations. 14. As a result of Defendant’s creation and maintenance of a private and public nuisance, Plaintiffs have sustained damages in a sum in excess of $75,000.00. TRESPASS 15. As alleged above, Defendant discharged and released oil, gas, saltwater and/or other deleterious substances from its oil and gas operations to the Property, and damaged the Property. 16. The Defendant had no permission, right or license to discharge and release oil, gas, saltwater or other deleterious substances to the Property, or to use the Property in an unreasonable manner, and such acts constituted a trespass upon the Property. 17. As a result of Defendant’s trespass, the Plaintiffs have been harmed as follows: a. The Plaintiffs have been deprived of the use and enjoyment of portions of the surface of the Property for personal and agricultural purposes; b. The Plaintiffs sustained agricultural losses; c. The Property has sustained temporary injuries occurring during the remediation process; and d. As a result of the Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered personal aggravation, annoyance, inconvenience and discomfort; and e. Other injuries as may be established by evidence presented at trial. 18. As a result of the Defendants’ trespass, Plaintiffs have sustained damages in a sum in excess of $75,000. NEGLIGENCE 19. As alleged above, the Defendant discharged and released oil, gas, saltwater and/or other deleterious substances from its oil and gas operations to the Property, and damaged the Property. 20. At all times, the Defendant had a duty to conduct its oil and gas operations in a reasonably prudent and lawful manner, and to refrain from causing injury to the Plaintiffs and the Property. 21. The Defendant breached this duty by carelessly committing negligent acts and/or omissions and by conducting its oil and gas operations in an unreasonable manner creating an unreasonable risk of injury to others. 22. The negligent acts and omissions of the Defendant were committed in violation of applicable laws, statutes and regulations, and constitute negligence per se. 23. As a proximate result of the Defendant’s negligent acts and omissions, the Plaintiffs have been harmed in the following particulars: a. The Plaintiffs have been deprived of the use and enjoyment of portions of the surface of the Property for personal and agricultural purposes; b. The Plaintiffs sustained agricultural losses; c. The Property has sustained temporary injuries occurring during the remediation process; and d. As a result of the Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered personal distress; and h. Other injuries as may be established by evidence presented at trial. 24. As a result of the Defendant’s negligent acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have sustained damages in a sum in excess of $75,000. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, Jerry D. Bewley and Angela R. Bewley, pray for judgment against the Defendant, Latigo Drilling Corp., for nuisance, for trespass, for negligence; for permanent and/or temporary damages to the Property; for the cost to restore the Property to its previous condition; for diminution in value of the Property; for personal annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, aggravation and distress; for consequential and/or agricultural damages; for unjust enrichment; and for punitive damages; all in an amount in excess of $75,000; for attorney fees and costs; and for any other relief, legal or equitable, to which the Plaintiffs may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Wes Johnston, OBA #13704 JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 501 N.W. 13th Street Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Telephone: (405) 548-5077 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs ATTORNEYS' LIEN CLAIMED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED