Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Doe Run commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking to enforce Lexington's contractual duty to defend Doe Run per its Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies in an underlying lawsuit. The underlying lawsuit alleged environmental property damage resulting from Doe Run's mine and mill operations. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that Lexington had no duty to defend because the policies' absolute pollution exclusions unambiguously barred coverage of all claims asserted in the underlying lawsuit. View "Doe Run Resources Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co." on Justia Law

SEECO, Inc. owned oil-and-gas leases and possessed rights authorizing it to explore for and develop minerals from several tracts of land. SEECO filed an interpleader action to determine the ownership of the oil, gas, and minerals in the land. Appellee requested that the circuit court quiet title and confirm title in Appellees. Several defendants were named in the action. The circuit court ruled that a 1929 mineral deed, even with a blank left empty in the granting clause, conveyed one hundred percent of the mineral interest in three tracts of land to J.S. Martin. Appellees included the Stanton Group, as Martin's heirs and successors in interest, and SEECO. Appellants appealed, arguing that the 1929 mineral deed was void because the description of the interest was so vague that it was unenforceable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the 1929 mineral deed was unambiguous, and the circuit court did not err by refusing to consider the parol evidence of a subsequent 1930 deed. View "Barton Land Servs., Inc. v. SEECO, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the owners and lessors of royalty rights to natural gas produced in Trumbull and Mahoning Counties in Ohio, filed a putative class-action lawsuit, alleging that three interrelated energy companies that entered into oil and gas leases with plaintiffs deliberately and fraudulently underpaid gas royalties over more than a decade. Plaintiffs asserted breach of contract and five additional tort and quasi-contract claims and sought compensatory and punitive damages. The district court dismissed, holding that the contract claim was time-barred by Ohio’s four-year statute of limitations and that none of the tort and quasi-contract claims were separate and distinct from the underlying contract action because they did not allege any obligations apart from those imposed by the leases. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, finding that the district court failed to consider plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment argument and that allegations regarding due diligence were sufficient to require further analysis. View "Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant offered to purchase plaintiffs-appellees' mineral interest in Seminole County. At the time, plaintiffs did not know that they had inherited the mineral interest, that the mineral interest was included in a pooling order, or that proceeds had accrued under the pooling order. Defendant admitted it knew about the pooling order and the accrued proceeds but did not disclose these facts in making the offer. Plaintiffs signed the mineral deeds which defendant provided, and subsequently, they discovered the pooling order and the accrued proceeds. Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant for rescission and damages, alleging misrepresentation, deceit and fraud. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed. The issues before the Supreme Court on appeal were: (1) whether the summary judgment record on appeal established that defendant owed the plaintiffs a duty to disclose the pooling order and the accrued mineral proceeds when it made an unsolicited offer to purchase their undivided mineral interest in Seminole County and provided the mineral deeds to be executed; and if so, (2) whether rescission of the mineral deeds was a remedy for defendant's breach of the disclosure duty. The Court held that defendant owed a duty to disclose the accrued mineral proceeds to plaintiffs when it offered to purchase the mineral interest and provided the mineral deeds conveying the mineral interest and assigning the accrued mineral proceeds, if any. Furthermore, the Court held that rescission is an appropriate remedy in this case for the breach of defendant's disclosure duty. View "Croslin v. Enerex, Inc." on Justia Law

Northern Oil & Gas, Inc. appealed a judgment ordering reformation of an oil and gas lease and quieting title to the oil and gas leasehold estate in Murex Petroleum Corporation, John H. Holt, LBK Sales & Service, Inc., Racer Oil & Gas, LC, and Double L, LLC. In 2007, a landman working for Morris Creighton signed an oil and gas lease with the original mineral holder. The lease was recorded, but a month later, a typographical error was discovered in the lease’s property description. Six months later, Creighton assigned his interest in the lease, with an exception of an overriding royalty interest, to Antares Exploration Fund, L.P. Antares then assigned its interest in the Creighton lease to Northern. Northern brought an action to quiet title against Creighton and Murex to determine rights of the parties to the oil and gas leasehold estate. Murex filed a third-party complaint against the original mineral rights holders, a cross-claim against Creighton, and a counterclaim against Northern. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that Creighton was not a good faith purchaser and the Court held that there was a question of fact whether Creighton had constructive notice when he acquired rights under the lease. The Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Northern Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Creighton" on Justia Law

Defendants The Pantry, Inc., and Herndon Oil Corporation appealed a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs Kaycee Mosley and Alana Byrd. The appeals primarily concerned whether Kaycee and Alana's mother, Murel Mosley, unreasonably withheld consent to Herndon Oil's assignment of a lease between Murel and Herndon Oil. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, concluding that Murel unreasonably withheld consent to the assignment of the lease from Herndon Oil to The Pantry. Thus, Herndon Oil had the right under the lease agreement to assign the lease to The Pantry despite Murel's failure to consent. Furthermore, neither Herndon Oil nor The Pantry could be liable on a conversion claim. View "The Pantry, Inc. v. Mosley" on Justia Law

In 1983, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act established a plan for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) generated by nuclear power plants, 42 U.S.C. 10101–10270. The Act made utilities responsible for SNF storage until the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) accepts the material. The Secretary of Energy entered into contracts with nuclear utilities to accept SNF in return for payment of fees. The Act provided that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission “shall not issue or renew a license” to any nuclear utility unless the utility has entered into a contract with DOE or DOE certifies ongoing negotiations. Nuclear utilities, including the owner of the Entergy nuclear power stations, entered into contracts and began making payments, which have continued. By 1994, DOE knew it would be unable to accept SNF by the Act’s January 31, 1998 deadline. In 1995, DOE issued a “Final Interpretation” that took the position that it did not have an unconditional obligation to begin performance on that date. Entergy sued, asserting that DOE’s partial breach caused it to incur additional costs for SNF storage. The claims court struck an unavoidable delay defense, based on a prior decision rejecting DOE’s argument that its failure was “unavoidable” under the contract. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Entergy Nuclear Fitzpatrick, LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

Through a series of assignments, Clovelly Oil Company and Midstates Petroleum Company, LLC, were parties to a 1972 joint operating agreement (JOA). The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a lease acquired by Midstates in 2008 was subject to the provisions of the JOA. Upon review, the Court found that the lease in question was not subject to the JOA, and reversed the appellate court and reinstated the trial court's ruling. View "Clovelly Oil Co. v. Midstates Petroleum Co., LLC" on Justia Law

This case involved a contractual interpretation dispute over whether overriding royalties were payable out of the initial oil and gas production from a tract of land on the outer continental shelf (OCS) adjacent to Louisiana. The court concluded, under applicable Louisiana law, that the "calculate and pay" clauses in the overriding royalty interests assignment contracts did not clearly and explicitly express the intent that overriding royalty payments shall be suspended whenever the U.S. landowner royalties were suspended under the OCS Deepwater Royalty Relief Act, 43 U.S.C. 1337(a); and that the "calculate and pay" clauses must be interpreted further in search of the common intent of the parties to the assignment contracts. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Total E&P USA, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corp, et al" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the explosion and sinking of Transocean's Deepwater Horizon in April 2010. At issue were the obligations of Transocean's primary and excess-liability insurers to cover BP's pollution-related liabilities deriving from the ensuing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Because the court, applying Texas law, found that the umbrella policies between the Insurers and Transocean did not impose any relevant limitation upon the extent to which BP was an additional insured, and because the additional insured provision in the Drilling Contract was separate from and additional to the indemnity provisions therein, the court found BP was entitled to coverage under each of Transocean's policies as an additional insured as a matter of law. The court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law