The issue in QBE Syndicate 1036 v. Compass Minerals Louisiana, LLC was whether the scope of the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnification Act applies to operations involving salt mining?
QBE issued a commercial general liability insurance policy to FSS and MC Electric. Clements, an employee of MC Electric, was electrocuted while working in the Cote Blanche salt
Precious little legal analysis is required to grasp the lesson from Springbok Royalty Partners v. Cook. No mode or manner of legal gymnastics is likely to save parties from the legal effect of a contract they didn’t bother to read before they signed it.
The agreement
Following a lengthy conversation between the Cooks and a
Co-author, Gray Reed partner Jim ReedThe common thread throughout the myriad oil and gas royalty cases decided recently by Texas courts could be “harmony”, the reading of different, seemingly conflicting, contract provisions so as to give meaning to all.
In Enervest Operating, LLC v. Mayfield and Ingham the Fourth Court of Appeal harmonized a
Co-author Justin CowanJust because parties agree that disputes over a contract will be subject to binding arbitration doesn’t mean there won’t be wrestling at the courthouse beforehand. In LLOG Exploration Offshore, LLC v. Samson Contour Energy E&P, LLC, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana resolved a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss a lawsuit by staying the litigation pending the outcome of the arbitration but not dismissing the case.
Continue Reading Arbitration Over Offshore Leases Does Not Warrant Lawsuit Dismissal
Co-author Jeremy WalterArk Sand Co., Inc. v. Bradley Demolition & Constr., LLC, et al has the appearance of a Hatfield and McCoy-grade grudge match. As often happens when litigation gets personal, the Texas Citizens Participation Act was invoked. The TCPA is the statute that protects citizens’ First Amendment rights such as free speech and
Those who continue to be horrified by Broadway National Bank, Trustee v. Yates Energy Corp. should be relieved that the result in Endeavor Energy Resources, LP v. Anderson was more equitable. In Yates, the Texas Supreme Court held that Texas Property Code Section 5.029 permitted original parties to a conveyance to execute a
At issue in RKI Exploration and Production LLC v. AmeriFlow Energy Services LLC and Crescent Services, LLC. were two Master Service Agreements. RKI was the operator of a well in Loving County; AmeriFlow and Crescent were contractors. A sand separator exploded at the well site injuring or killing three workers who worked for another subcontractor. The result was three suits in New Mexico and a mazelike series of indemnity demands, denials, settlements, and judgments, including settlement of one death case for $9.1 million.
To preserve your patience, and mine, let’s focus on the takeaways from this 72-page behemoth of an opinion based on a 10,000-page record.
Grammar lessons
The court defined a phrase common to Master Service Agreements: “arising in connection herewith”. Indemnitees AmeriFlow and Crescent argued that the phrase “encompasses all activities reasonably incident to or anticipated by the principal activity of the MSA, which was oil well operation”. No, it doesn’t. The court determined that the phrase requires a causal connection between the MSA and the claims for which the indemnitee sought indemnity. The scope of work envisioned in the MSA was defined by work orders, and the indemnity could go no further than the scope of work.
Continue Reading Texas Court Addresses MSA Indemnity Obligations
Co-author Carolina Cuppetilli*Today we will skip our usual routine of explaining how court rulings on the question of the day might affect your interests. Instead we will discuss the fallout from abysmal document drafting. In Rosetta Resources Operating v. Martin, the Supreme Court of Texas cautioned that an express covenant to protect against
Co-author Stephanie Snyder-Zuasnabar*
A subcontractor’s mineral lien in Texas is invalid when, at the time the mineral owner receives notice of the lien affidavit, the mineral owner is not yet obligated to pay the contract price to its contractor. So says Pearl Resources Operating Co., LLC v. Transcon Capital, LLC,
The real takeaway that
Federal Insurance Company et al v. Select Energy Services LLC and Exco et al. is a reminder for negotiators of indemnity and defense obligations in oilfield contracts that choice of law is important. Ignore it when drafting and it will be too late when litigating.
The events
Three workers were injured on an Exco drilling rig in DeSoto Parish. Two sued in Texas, one sued in Louisiana. In the Texas suit Exco demanded that Select indemnify and defend Exco under the parties’ service agreement; Select did, and paid $31MM to settle. In the Louisiana suit the roles were reversed. Exco (through Federal) agreed to defend Select. Exco then withdrew its defense and alleged that the indemnity provision was unenforceable because it contravened La. R.S. 9:2780 the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act. Select filed a reconventional demand to recover the amount of the Texas settlement.
The choice of law provision called for Texas law to apply without regard to conflict of laws provisions. In case a court might choose to apply the Louisiana Act, there was a substitute indemnity provision: The indemnity and insurance obligations are separate and apart from each other. The insurance obligation would support, but not in any way limit, the defense and indemnity obligations set forth in the agreement.
The Louisiana and Texas Acts
The Louisiana Act was an attempt to avoid adhesionary contracts in which, due to unequal bargaining power, a contractor would have no choice but to agree to indemnify the oil company lest they risk losing the contract. The Act declares null and void any provision in any agreement which requires defense and/or indemnification where there is negligence or fault on the part of the indemnitee or an independent contractor who is directly responsible. If Louisiana law applied, the statute would invalidate Exco’s defense and indemnity obligations to Select.
On the other hand, the Texas Act generally invalidates oilfield indemnity agreements but allows enforcement of mutual indemnity obligations limited to the scope and amount of contractual indemnity insurance each party as indemnitor has agreed to provide to the other as indemnitee. Thus, a mutual obligation is enforceable but limited to the extent of coverage limits of contractual indemnity insurance.
The insurance provided by the parties in the contract brought the mutual indemnity agreement within the exception.
Continue Reading Louisiana Court Considers Texas and Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Acts