Sunday, November 23, 2008

When indemnity hinges on choice of law | Texas Supreme Court remands case for application of LA law

Contractual Choice of Law: Case remanded for retrial under Louisiana law. In prior mandamus proceeding Court granted insurer opportunity to participate as nonparty in appeal.

Sonat Exploration Co. v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.
No. 06-0979 (Tex. Nov. 21, 2008) (Brister)(choice of law where no express provision in the contract applied to the oilfield accident in Louisiana, duty to indemnify, Rule 11 Agreement, intervention of insurer in appeal)
SONAT EXPLORATION COMPANY v. CUDD PRESSURE CONTROL, INC.; from Harrison County; 6th district (06-03-00077-CV, 202 SW3d 901, 09-26-06) 2 petitions The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment, but on different grounds. Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court.

FROM THE OPINION: This case returns to us after we ordered that an insurer be allowed to argue on appeal a choice-of-law issue that its insured had waived.[1] The court of appeals sustained the insurer’s point, finding that Louisiana law applied because it was the place the contract was performed and was impliedly chosen by the parties. While we disagree with those reasons, we agree with the court’s ultimate conclusion that Louisiana law applies and that remand is required. Accordingly, we affirm.

Prior mandamus case: In re Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 184 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. 2006)("We hold that under the unusual circumstances this case presents, Lumbermens is entitled to invoke the virtual-representation doctrine to raise on appeal the choice-of-law issue its insured abandoned in order to settle uninsured claims in another suit, and the court of appeals abused its discretion in holding otherwise. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct the court of appeals to permit Lumbermens’ participation to contest the trial court’s choice-of-law ruling. The writ will issue only if the court fails to do so.")
Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Sheppard (Tex. 2008)
No. 06-0845 (Tex. Nov. 21, 2008) (Brister)
(oil and gas law, pooling, lease expiration)
WAGNER & BROWN, LTD. ET AL. v. JANE TURNER SHEPPARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF SYBIL TURNER, DECEASED; from Upshur County; 6th district (06-05-00023-CV, 198 SW3d 369, 07-14-06) The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment, renders judgment in part, and remands the case to the trial court. Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court. (Justice Willett not sitting)

FROM THE OPINION: One observer has estimated that 85 percent of the 27,000 wells drilled in the East Texas oil field in the first half of the 20th century were unnecessary — resulting in a huge waste of money and natural resources.[1] As one means of reducing excessive drilling, the Texas Legislature provided for voluntary pooling in 1949,[2] and compulsory pooling in 1965.[3]

Since then, this Court has never addressed how a pool of producing properties is affected if a lease in the pool expires. In this case, the courts below held that expiration of a lease removes those minerals from the pool and bars recovery of any costs incurred before termination. But the pooling agreement here did not depend on the continuation of underlying leases, nor was the equitable right of reimbursement for improvements necessarily extinguished by termination of the lease. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

2008-11-14 Mandamus Day at Texas Supreme Court

ARBITRATION MANDAMUS, INTERVENTION & SEVERANCE MANDAMUS, VENUE MANDAMUS, AND MED-MAL EXPERT REPORT MANDAMUS

In Re Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc.,
No. 07-0608 (Tex. Nov. 14, 2008)(venue mandamus in condemnation suit, motion to transfer venue) IN RE TRANSCONTINENTAL REALTY INVESTORS, INC.; from Kaufman County; 5th district (05‑07‑00726‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07‑25‑07) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus. Per Curiam Opinion

In Re Union Carbide Corp.
No. 07-0987 (Tex. Nov. 14, 2008)(mandamus granted, severance, intervention disallowed) IN RE UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; from Galveston County; 1st district (01‑07‑00707‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 10‑25‑07) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus. Per Curiam Opinion

In Re Shondra Buster,
No. 08-0125 (Tex. Nov. 14, 2008)(mandamus in HCLC case, expert report requirement) IN RE SHONDRA BUSTER, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES BREWER; from Nacogdoches County; 12th district (12-06‑00349‑CV, 243 SW3d 848, 01‑16‑08) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus. Per Curiam Opinion

In Re Next Financial Groups, Inc.,
No. 08-0192 (Tex. Nov. 14, 2008)(arbitration mandamus, employment dispute arbitration securities broker's Sabine Pilot claim for wrongful termination)
IN RE NEXT FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; from Harris County; 14th district (14‑08‑00005‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03‑06‑08) stay order issued March 28, 2008, liftedPursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus. Per Curiam Opinion

SSP Partners and Metro Novelties, Inc.,
No. 05-0721 (Tex. Nov. 14, 2008) (Hecht) (products liability, indemnity)
SSP PARTNERS AND METRO NOVELTIES, INC. v. GLADSTRONG INVESTMENTS (USA) CORPORATION; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13‑02‑00671‑CV, 169 SW3d 27, 04‑07‑05) 2 petitions The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment. Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court.

Kerlin v. Soto Arias,
No. 06-0097 (Tex. Nov. 14, 2008)(challenge to deed, sufficiency of affidavit, lack personal knowledge, hearsay, foreign language translation)
GILBERT KERLIN, INDIVIDUALLY, GILBERT KERLIN, TRUSTEE, WINDWARD OIL & GAS CORP., AND PI CORP v. GLORIA SOTO ARIAS, ET AL.; from Cameron County; 13th district (13‑03‑00364‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 01‑05‑06) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment. Per Curiam Opinion

Perry v. Cohen,
No. 07-0301 (Tex. Nov. 14, 2008)(special exceptions dismissal)
EMORY B. PERRY, ET AL. v. DARRYL R. COHEN, ET AL.; from Travis County; 3rd district (03‑05‑00786‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 01‑05‑07) as amended Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court. Per Curiam Opinion