Basic Energy Services, L.P., 343 P.3d 783

PRM Partners owned an oil well (Fuller Federal No. 5-18); PRM (its managing partner) was designated operator and contracted Hot Oil Services (Hot Oil) as an independent contractor to manage field-level well operations.
Hot Oil frequently engaged third-party contractors (including Basic Energy) to perform services; Basic Energy brought a workover rig to No. 5-18 and was injured when oil erupted and a fire damaged its equipment.
Basic Energy submitted and was paid a Daily Work Ticket invoice to PRM for labor; it later sued PRM Partners, PRM, and Hot Oil for damage to its equipment. Hot Oil was later dismissed by stipulation.
The Daily Work Ticket contained terms: PRM must provide or reimburse safety/health equipment beyond Basic Energy’s routine practices; Basic Energy must bill PRM for repair/replacement cost of damaged equipment.
The district court granted summary judgment for PRM and PRM Partners, finding Hot Oil an independent contractor and that PRM did not breach the contract; Basic Energy appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Did the Daily Work Ticket create enforceable obligations and did PRM breach (safety equipment BOP)?	PRM breached by not providing required safety equipment (BOP) when it was needed.	PRM argued no breach; district court concluded no breach.	Reversed in part: genuine issue exists whether a BOP was required; PRM failed to meet its summary judgment burden on this point.
2. Did PRM breach the provision requiring Basic Energy to bill PRM for equipment damage?	Basic Energy argued PRM liable under Daily Work Ticket if billed.	PRM said no bill was presented, so no obligation to pay.	Affirmed: no genuine issue — Basic Energy never billed PRM as contract required; summary judgment for PRM proper on this provision.
3. Is PRM liable for negligent hiring of Hot Oil (independent contractor)?	Basic Energy alleged negligent hiring caused the harm; PRM negligently selected/retained Hot Oil.	PRM contended independent-contractor rule negates liability and that issue was not properly presented.	Reversed and remanded: PRM failed to carry summary judgment burden; negligent-hiring claim (under Restatement §411) may proceed.
4. Was apparent agency preserved/raised below so PRM can be vicariously liable?	Basic Energy now argues Hot Oil was apparent agent of PRM.	PRM says issue not raised below.	Not considered: appellate court refuses to address apparent agency first raised on appeal (not pleaded or litigated below).

Hatton v. Energy Elec. Co., 148 P.3d 8 (Wyo. 2006) (standard and burden allocation for summary judgment review)
Cranston v. Weston County Weed & Pest Bd., 826 P.2d 251 (Wyo. 1992) (recognition of negligent hiring theory and Restatement §213 discussion)
Franks v. Indep. Prod. Co., Inc., 96 P.3d 484 (Wyo. 2004) (independent-contractor general rule limiting respondeat superior liability)
Singer v. New Tech Eng’g L.P., 227 P.3d 305 (Wyo. 2010) (reiteration that employers generally not liable for independent contractor’s negligence)
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Caballo Coal Co., 246 P.3d 867 (Wyo. 2011) (district court may not grant summary judgment sua sponte without proper notice and adversarial presentation)