In Barrow-Shaver Resources Company v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc the Supreme Court of Texas has held again, here in a consent-to-assign dispute, that a contract means what the words say, even if in negotiations a landman said something he didn’t mean, … or changed his mind later, and even if “industry custom” is to the contrary.
Continue Reading
Co-author Alexis FosterThanks to the power of the trucking lobby, the prevailing policy on the question of who wins and who loses if a carrier of goods goes unpaid favors the carrier over the broker, shipper, consignor and consignee. The rationale is that allowing shippers the benefit of carriage of goods without compensating the carrier would eventually cripple the shipping industry and the economy. Thus, the carrier will be paid, irrespective of the carrier’s failure to collect from the shipper or consignee or payment by one of the other parties to another.
The Bill of Lading
Continue Reading
Imagine how much better off you would be if the contract you want to enforce had been reduced to writing. See West v. Quintanilla for what happens when it wasn’t.
The agreements
Continue Reading
Confess … Confess!
When you prepare, review and/or sign settlement agreements you sometimes pay less attention than you should to the details of those “standard” releases! Acme Energy Services, d/b/a Big Dog Drilling v. Staley et al. says, Beware the “boilerplate”; before signing consider what you are actually trying to accomplish.
Continue Reading
Co-author Trevor LawhornA lot, if the claim before the court is for fraudulent inducement. Points to remember:
You may recall our report that the Supreme Court of Texas was to take up the question of whether an insurance policy required indemnification of over $100 million in defense costs related to the Macondo well blowout. The court has ruled in Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Houston Casualty Company. Anadarko, the insured, prevailed on
An opinion that observes “Obviously the jury was not overly enamored with Appellants.” is worth discussing. The decision is Stephens et al v. Three Finger Black Shale Partnership et al.
What to know about partnerships
Parties to a transaction need to be mindful that if a business deal is a partnership, there will be rights and duties not present in arms-length commercial transactions. The main question in Stephens: Was a partnership formed by a letter agreement, a participation agreement and the actions of the parties?
Continue Reading
Co-author Chance DeckerIt’s a tale as old as the oilfield: A non-operator doesn’t pay joint interest billings, operator sues, non-payer claims the expenses were unwarranted and the operator was negligent—no, grossly negligent—for incurring them in the first place. Welcome to OBO, Inc. v. Apache Corporation et al. Despite a creative argument by non-operator OBO that contract operator Apache didn’t have authority to charge JIB’s in the first place, OBO must pay.
The facts
Continue Reading
Co-author Lydia WebbQ: How many New York federal judges does it take to make a mess of Texas property law?
A: In In Re: Sabine Oil and Gas Corp., five. One to get it wrong, another to affirm the wrongness, and three more for reinforcement.
For the third time, a federal court in
Co-author Niloufar “Nikki” Hafizi
The 2012 Macondo Well blowout and Deepwater Horizon rig explosion gave rise to a slew of lawsuits. Our subject today is one of them. In Houston Casualty Company v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. the Beaumont court of appeals construed an insurance policy’s excess liability coverage provision. At stake was whether Underwriters had to indemnify Anadarko for over $100 million in defense costs. In an opinion much-decried by energy companies, the court thought not.
The Texas Supreme Court will review the decision, so let’s look at what the court of appeals said.
Continue Reading