CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 14-00-00173-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2001

Chesapeake Operating, Inc. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc.

This case consolidates two appeals concerning indemnity claims in personal injury lawsuits that arose from a Louisiana oil well drilling site but were filed in Texas courts. The core issue is whether Texas or Louisiana law should govern the indemnity provisions in the contract between Chesapeake Operating, Inc. and Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., as Louisiana law would void indemnities for negligent parties, while Texas law, with certain exceptions, would enforce them. The court applied the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws sections 187 and 188, focusing on the state with the most significant relationship to the indemnity issue. It concluded that Texas law applies, emphasizing the parties' domicile, place of negotiation, the location of the indemnity performance (litigation in Texas), and the contractual freedom policy. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment enforcing Nabors' indemnity claim in the Alms case (14-00-00173-CV) and reversed and remanded the judgment denying Nabors' claim in the Fritz case (14-00-00580-CV).

Oilfield IndemnityChoice of LawConflict of LawsTexas LawLouisiana LawContract EnforcementSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDrilling ContractPersonal Injury
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petroleum Exploration & Operating Corp. v. J. W. McCutchen Drilling Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Petroleum Exploration and Operating Corporation (Petro) against a summary judgment favoring J. W. McCutchen Drilling Company (McCutchen) in a suit on an indemnity agreement. The agreement stipulated McCutchen would indemnify Petro against claims by McCutchen's employees resulting from McCutchen's negligence. A McCutchen employee, W. R. Hardcastle, sued Petro for injuries and received workers' compensation benefits from McCutchen's carrier, prompting Petro's cross-claim for indemnity and contribution. The central legal question involved whether the indemnity clause circumvented the Workers' Compensation Act's prohibition on third-party recovery from employers. The court found the indemnity agreement valid under the Act and reversed the summary judgment, concluding McCutchen failed to prove its non-negligence as a matter of law.

Indemnity AgreementOil Drilling ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer LiabilityContractual IndemnityNegligenceThird Party LiabilityReversed and RemandedTexas Law
References
1
Case No. 02-14-00303-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2015

Titan Operating, LLC v. Marcus C. Marsden, Jr. and Laura B. Marsden

The case involves Titan Operating, LLC appealing a trial court's judgment favoring Marcus C. Marsden, Jr. and Laura B. Marsden in a nuisance suit. The Marsdens claimed Titan's oil and gas drilling operations near their home constituted a nuisance. However, the Marsdens had previously signed an oil and gas lease and an easement agreement with Titan (or its predecessors), receiving bonus payments and ongoing royalties. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, reversed the trial court's decision, applying the doctrine of quasi-estoppel. The court ruled that it was unconscionable for the Marsdens to accept financial benefits from transactions authorizing drilling operations while simultaneously suing for nuisance based on the effects of those same operations. Consequently, the appellate court rendered judgment that the Marsdens take nothing.

Oil and Gas LawNuisanceQuasi-EstoppelProperty RightsMineral RightsLease AgreementEasementAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureLandowner Rights
References
24
Case No. 14-04-00541-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2005

Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. v. Swift Energy Company

This is a contract construction case regarding a drilling contract dispute between Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. (H&P), the contractor, and Swift Energy Company (Swift), the operator. The dispute centered on the allocation of responsibility for costs related to a drilling fluid spill. H&P argued that the contract unambiguously allocated responsibility to Swift and sought declaratory relief and attorney's fees. Swift counterclaimed for breach of contract, asserting H&P's obligation to reimburse for the costs under an additional insured clause. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Swift. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the drilling contract's "notwithstanding anything to the contrary" clause in the pollution responsibility section allocated all liability for such costs to Swift, overriding any implied obligation on H&P under the insurance clause. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding H&P's attorney's fees.

Contract LawIndemnity ClauseInsurance PolicyAdditional InsuredPollution LiabilityOil & Gas IndustryAppellate DecisionSummary JudgmentTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. 11-07-00370-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2008

Dennis Verner v. Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc. Patterson-UTI Drilling Company And Patterson-UTI Drilling Company West LP, LLLP

Dennis Verner appealed a take-nothing summary judgment granted in favor of Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc., Patterson-UTI Drilling Company, and Patterson-UTI Drilling Company West LP, LLLP. Verner had sustained an on-the-job injury in an oilfield accident and subsequently filed a negligence suit. The Patterson defendants sought summary judgment, asserting the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act for Patterson West and a lack of a legal duty for the other Patterson entities. The trial court granted summary judgment, which the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court concluded that Patterson West successfully established its exclusive remedy defense and that Patterson Drilling and Patterson Energy did not owe a duty to Verner.

oilfield injurysummary judgmentnegligence claimexclusive remedyTexas Workers’ Compensation Actemployer liabilitycorporate veilappellate reviewduty of caredaywork drilling contract
References
12
Case No. 01-14-00892-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2014

Adelaida Salazar Bautista A/K/A Adelaida Alvarado, Individually and as Next Friend of Maria Jennifer Aide A/K/A Maria Jennifer Alvarado, A. A., A. A., I. S. A., M. A., and E. A., Minors And Irineo Alvarado and Maria Ana Moctezuma v. Trinidad Drilling Limited

This is an interlocutory appeal of an order granting a special appearance by Trinidad Drilling Ltd., a Canadian corporation, in a wrongful death lawsuit. Appellants Adelaida Salazar Bautista et al. sued Trinidad Drilling Ltd. for the death of Nabor Alvarado, alleging negligence and attempting to establish specific personal jurisdiction by claiming the parent company controlled and oversaw the subsidiary's drilling operations in Texas. The trial court, Hon. Brent Gamble presiding in the 270th Judicial District Court of Harris County, granted Trinidad Drilling Ltd.'s special appearance on October 13, 2014. Trinidad Drilling Ltd. argues that it lacks sufficient contacts with Texas for specific or general personal jurisdiction, maintaining that it is a separate entity from the subsidiary, Trinidad LP, and therefore its corporate independence should be respected. The appellee requests the Court to affirm the trial court's judgment.

Personal JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionGeneral JurisdictionCorporate Veil PiercingParent-Subsidiary RelationshipWrongful DeathNegligenceSpecial AppearanceInterlocutory AppealTexas Law
References
8
Case No. NO. 01-08-00922-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2010

Harrison Vinson v. American Bureau of Shipping, Global Santa Fe Drilling Corporation, Global Santa Fe Corporation, Global Santa Fe Offshore Services, Inc., Global Santa Fe Operations, National Oilwell L.P., National Oilwell Varco, L.P., and National Oilwell Norway, A.S.

Harrison Vinson filed a personal injury lawsuit against ABS, GlobalSantaFe entities, and NOV entities after a derrick collapsed on a drilling rig in Singapore. The Harris County District Court dismissed the case based on forum non conveniens, deeming Singapore a more appropriate forum. Vinson appealed, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction and abused its discretion. The First District Court of Appeals of Texas reversed the trial court's dismissal, finding the order final and appealable. The appellate court determined that the balance of private and public interest factors strongly favored retaining the case in Texas, given the defendants' Houston headquarters, location of critical witnesses and documents, and Vinson's US citizenship, and thus the trial court abused its discretion. The case was remanded for further proceedings in Texas.

Forum Non ConveniensPersonal InjuryDrilling Rig AccidentMaritime LawJones ActAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas LawSingapore LawJurisdiction
References
21
Case No. 01-11-00459-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2012

Sonerra Resources Corporation v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co.

Sonerra Resources Corporation, an oil-well operator, sued Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., a drilling contractor, for breach of contract, seeking indemnity after an H&P employee was injured by a defective part supplied by Sonerra. Sonerra argued that article 14.8 of their drilling contract required H&P to indemnify it for employee bodily injury claims. H&P contended that article 14.7, which addressed damages from materials furnished by Sonerra, required Sonerra to indemnify H&P. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of H&P, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The appellate court found that the term "materials" in article 14.7 encompassed the defective part and that "any loss or damage" included bodily injury claims, making article 14.7 the more specific provision controlling over article 14.8.

contract disputeindemnity agreementbreach of contractsummary judgmentoil and gas industrydrilling contractbodily injury claimsdefective materialscontract interpretationappellate review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. v. Swift Energy Co.

This case involves a contract dispute between Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. (H&P), a contractor, and Swift Energy Company (Swift), an operator, regarding a Daywork Drilling Contract. A spill of drilling fluids occurred, costing Swift $155,078.86 in cleanup. Swift, an additional insured on H&P's Comprehensive General Liability (CGL) policy, sought reimbursement from H&P after the insurer denied the claim due to a deductible. The core legal issue was the conflict between two contract provisions: Paragraph 13, requiring H&P to procure insurance making deductibles its sole obligation, and Paragraph 14.11, which stated Swift assumed all responsibility for such pollution and indemnified H&P, notably including a "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein" clause. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment for Swift, holding that Paragraph 14.11's "notwithstanding" clause meant Swift contractually assumed all liability for the pollution costs and indemnified H&P, overriding any implied obligation from Paragraph 13 for H&P to cover the deductible. Thus, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment for H&P.

Contract LawOil and Gas ContractsIndemnificationInsurance CoverageAppellate DecisionSummary Judgment ReviewPollution LiabilityDeductiblesContract Interpretation PrinciplesTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
23
Case No. 11-06-00244-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2006

in Re Great Western Drilling, Ltd.

This mandamus proceeding addresses a trial court's order compelling arbitration between Great Western Drilling, Ltd. and several working interest owners. Great Western filed a declaratory judgment action contesting the applicability of arbitration provisions in two joint operating agreements (JOAs) to a dispute concerning oil and gas leases outside the JOAs' defined contract and area of mutual interest. The working interest owners counter-argued breach of fiduciary duty, contract, and common law duties by Great Western for independently acquiring adjacent leases. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed the scope of the arbitration agreement, concluding that the JOAs explicitly disclaimed joint ventures and fiduciary duties, and geographically limited obligations. Therefore, the dispute regarding wells drilled outside the defined areas fell outside the arbitration agreement's scope. The court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, instructing the trial court to rescind its arbitration order.

ArbitrationJoint Operating AgreementMandamusOil and GasContract InterpretationFiduciary DutyArea of Mutual InterestScope of ArbitrationTexas AppealsDeclaratory Judgment
References
49
Showing 1-10 of 2,020 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational