Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In a 1996 purchase and sale agreement Torch Energy Advisors Inc. sold its leasehold interests in undeveloped oil and gas fields located under federal waters. Certain interests were excluded from the conveyance. A decade later, a federal court determined that the federal government had repudiated the mineral leases because a statute enacted before the conveyance had been applied in a manner that precluded development of the leasehold interests. Consequently, the purchaser’s successor in interest, Plains Exploration & Production Company, was awarded restitution of the lease-bonus payments that Torch’s predecessor had paid to secure the leases. Torch claimed an ownership interest in approximately half of the judgment based on the terms of the excluded-assets provision in the 1996 agreement. Plains declined to pay. Torch sued, alleging contract and equitable theories of recovery. The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment in Plains’s favor. The court of appeals reversed in part and remanded the equity claim for a trial on the merits, concluding that Torch’s equitable claim hinged on the proper construction of the 1996 agreement’s terms. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the relevant excluded-assets provisions in the 1996 agreement were unambiguous and, as a matter of law, Torch did not retain ownership of the claimed asset. View "Plains Exploration & Prod. Co. v. Torch Energy Advisors, Inc." on Justia Law

Kachina Pipeline Co., a pipeline operator, and Michael Lillis, a natural-gas producer, entered into a Gas Purchase Agreement. Kachina bought, transported, and resold Lillis’s gas according to the Agreement. Lillis later entered into a separate purchase agreement and constructed his own pipeline to one of Davis Gas Processing’s plants. Thereafter, Lillis sued Kachina, asserting that Kachina breached the Agreement by deducting the costs of compression that occurred after Lillis delivered the gas to Kachina. Lillis also brought a fraud claim, asserting that Kachina represented it would release him from the Agreement. Kachina counterclaimed for breach of the Agreement and seeking declarations that it had the right to deduct compression charges under the Agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment for Kachina, declaring that the Agreement entitled Kachina to deduct the costs of compression from its payments to Lillis and that the Agreement gave Kachina the option to extend the arrangement for an additional five-year term. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Agreement unambiguously allowed neither the disputed deductions nor a five-year extension. Remanded. View "Kachina Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Lillis" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a crew member aboard a supply vessel that was mud-roped to the Deepwater Horizon and was off-loading drilling mud on the night of the 2010 blowout, filed suit claiming that he sustained physical injuries when the explosion rocked the vessel and threw him against a bulkhead. On appeal, BP challenged the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff where the district court, over BP's objection, enforced a putative settlement agreement against BP in plaintiff's favor. The court held that the parties formed a binding settlement agreement; the district court correctly excused plaintiff’s failure to sign the release document where BP's refusal to send plaintiff the release excused that failure; but the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether plaintiff fraudulently induced BP into entering the settlement agreement. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s order in part, but vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Young v. BP" on Justia Law

In these consolidated cases, BP appealed three settlement awards, related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, that it paid to nonprofits through its Court-Supervised Settlement Program. On appeal, BP argued that the Claims Administrator improperly interpreted the Settlement Agreement. The awards were based on the Claims Administrator’s determination that nonprofits may count donations and grants as “revenue” under the terms of the Agreement (the Nonprofit-Revenue Interpretation). As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that it has jurisdiction over this appeal under the collateral order doctrine and that BP's appeals were timely. On the merits, the court concluded that BP failed to show that the Nonprofit-Revenue Interpretation violates the plain language of the Agreement. The court held that the Nonprofit-Revenue Interpretation does not alter the class definition in violation of Rule 23 or Article III. Finally, the court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of review of the individual awards. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law

BP and the Economic Property Damages Class entered into a Settlement Agreement in connection with the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. At issue is the district court's order approving the Final Rules Governing Discretionary Court Review of Appeal Determinations for claims processed through the Settlement Program. After determining that the court had jurisdiction over the appeal under the collateral order doctrine, the court concluded that the parties preserved their right to appeal from the district court under the settlement agreement. The court followed its sister circuits' decisions in similar cases involving consent decrees to hold that, where a settlement agreement does not resolve claims itself but instead establishes a mechanism pursuant to which the district court will resolve claims, parties must expressly waive what is otherwise a right to appeal from claim determination decisions by a district court. In this case, the parties have preserved their right to appeal. Finally, the court concluded that the Final Rules violate the right for parties to appeal claim determinations to this court where the district court failed to provide for the docketing of its orders regarding requests for review. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Lake Eugenie Land v. BP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a mineral owner, sued Defendant alleging breach of contract, failure to pay royalties, and fraud. The claims centered on three oil and gas leases that Plaintiff, the lessor, executed with Defendant, the lessee. Plaintiff prevailed on the majority of his claims in the trial court. As relevant to this appeal, the jury determined that Plaintiff, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, discovered the fraud less than four years before filing suit. The trial court therefore concluded that the claims were not time barred. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the fraud should have been discovered, as a matter of law, more than four years before Plaintiff filed suit because Plaintiff should have discovered the relevant information in the Texas Railroad Commission’s public records. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff’s reasonable diligence in discovering the underlying fraud was a question of fact for the jury. Remanded. View "Hooks v. Samson Lone Star, Ltd. P’ship" on Justia Law

The parties in this case owned interests in certain oil and gas leases in Sublette County, Wyoming. In the underlying litigation, the district court granted a monetary judgment against Defendants for amounts due to Plaintiffs. Defendants paid the monetary judgment. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to enforce judgment, claiming that Defendants were not properly accounting to them as required by the prior declaratory judgment and a net profits contract (NPC). After the district court issued its judgment, Defendants appealed the court’s decisions on the merits and its order requiring Defendants to pay attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed as revised, holding that the district court (1) properly assumed jurisdiction over the issues presented; (2) correctly interpreted its prior judgment and Defendants’ accounting responsibilities under the NPC; and (3) properly granted Plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees with one minor exception. View "Ultra Resources, Inc. v. Hartman" on Justia Law

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question of Pennsylvania law to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In August 2007, Appellee Wayne Harrison entered into a lease with Appellant Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, per which Cabot obtained the exclusive right to explore oil-and-gas resources on Harrison's property. In exchange, the company agreed to pay an initial bonus plus a one-eighth royalty on oil or gas successfully produced from the land. Approximately halfway through the primary lease term, Harrison and his wife commenced a civil action against Cabot in a federal district court, seeking a declaration that the lease was invalid. The Harrisons alleged the company had fraudulently induced Mr. Harrison to enter into the lease via an agent's representation that Mr. Harrison would never receive any more than $100 per acre as a threshold bonus payment from a gas producing company. The Harrisons learned of other landowner-lessors receiving higher payments. The Pennsylvania Court accepted certification from the Third Circuit to address whether the primary term of an oil-and-gas lease should have been equitably extended by the courts, where the lessor pursued an unsuccessful lawsuit challenging the validity of the lease. In its counterclaim, Cabot sought a declaratory judgment that, in the event the Harrisons' suit failed, the primary term of the lease would be equitably tolled during the period of time during which the suit was pending, and, concomitantly, the lease would be extended for an equivalent period of time beyond what was provided by its actual terms. The district court awarded summary judgment in Cabot's favor on the suit to invalidate the lease. The court, however, resolved the counterclaim in the Harrisons' favor, concluding that Pennsylvania law does not provide for equitable extensions of oil and gas leases under the circumstances. Cabot appealed, arguing that it would be deprived of the full benefit of the bargained-for terms of its contract with the Harrisons by their "meritless lease challenges." Cabot contended Pennsylvania law provided that a party repudiates a contract, and thus effectuates an essential breach, when he makes an unequivocal statement that he will not perform in accordance with his agreement. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed with Cabot's contention, holding that the Harrisons' lease challenge was not an anticipatory breach of the lease. "Our reluctance, in this respect, is bolstered by the Harrisons' observation that oil-and-gas-producing companies are free to proceed according to their own devices to negotiate express tolling provisions for inclusion in their leases. [. . .] Certainly, in light of the voluminous decisional law, such companies are on sufficient notice of the prospect for validity challenges to warrant their consideration of such protective measures. [ . . .] Our determination is only that, consistent with the prevailing substantive law of this Commonwealth, the mere pursuit of declaratory relief challenging the validity of a lease does not amount to such." View "Harrison v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp." on Justia Law

Bill Head, who owns and operates the Silver Spur Truck Stop in Pharr, Texas, hired Petroleum Solutions, Inc. to manufacture and install an underground fuel system. After the discovery that a major diesel-fuel release leak had occurred, Head sued Petroleum Solutions for its resulting damages. Petroleum Solutions filed a third-party petition against Titeflex, Inc., the alleged manufacturer of a component part incorporated into the fuel system, claiming indemnity and contribution. Titeflex filed a counterclaim against Petroleum Solutions for statutory indemnity. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Head and in favor of Titeflex. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court (1) reversed as to Head’s claims against Petroleum Solutions, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by charging the jury with a spoliation instruction and striking Petroleum Solutions’ defenses, and the abuse of discretion was harmful; and (2) affirmed as to Titeflex’s indemnity claim, holding that Titeflex was entitled to statutory indemnity from Petroleum Solutions and that any error with respect to the indemnity claim was harmless. View "Petroleum Solutions, Inc. v. Head" on Justia Law

Westar Energy was an electric company based in Topeka, Kansas that owned several sources of electricity, including the Jeffrey Energy Center (JEC). The JEC was a coal-fired power plant composed of three units: Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3. In 2005, Westar began a project to upgrade the JEC’s existing flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system. Wahlcometroflex Inc. (Wahlco) was a Delaware corporation that designed and manufactured a number of products including FGD dampers. On December 22, 2006, Westar and Wahlco entered into a contract under which Wahlco agreed to manufacture and deliver dampers to Westar for Units 1, 2, and 3. This case involved a dispute over the meaning and application of a liquidated damages in that contract provision under Kansas law. The district court held that Westar did not need to establish that Wahlco's late delivery of the equipment actually delayed Westar’s production schedule in order to recover contractual liquidated damages. Finding no error in that judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Wahlcometroflex v. Westar Energy" on Justia Law