Borusan Mannesmann Pipe US, Inc. v. Hunting Energy Services, LLC, 24-0183

Background

Borusan Mannesmann Pipe US, Inc. (Borusan) manufactures steel pipes and hired Hunting Energy Services, LLC (Hunting) to perform pipe expansion and threading services.
Borusan and Hunting included competing terms and conditions in their purchase orders and invoices, each attempting to control indemnification for pipe defects.
After Borusan sold threaded pipes to a third party, Sooner Pipe LLC, defective pipes were discovered downstream, causing damages.
Hunting sued Borusan for indemnity, among other claims, and Borusan counterclaimed, each seeking declaratory judgments on indemnification obligations.
The trial court ruled in favor of Hunting, requiring Borusan to indemnify it; the court of appeals refused to consider Borusan’s indemnity argument, holding it was forfeited due to inadequate briefing.
The Texas Supreme Court reviewed whether Borusan had preserved its indemnity argument on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Borusan's Argument	Hunting's Argument	Held
Did Borusan forfeit its challenge to the trial court's ruling that Borusan must indemnify Hunting by inadequately briefing the issue on appeal?	Borusan asserted its brief sufficiently challenged the enforceability of Hunting’s invoice terms and thus preserved the issue.	Hunting argued Borusan didn’t cite legal authority and failed to support its claim against indemnifying Hunting.	The Supreme Court ruled Borusan did not forfeit the argument; the court of appeals should consider the merits.
Are Hunting’s invoices valid and enforceable contracts obligating Borusan to indemnify Hunting?	Borusan argued no, highlighting its purchase orders' exclusivity clause and asserting it never expressly agreed to Hunting’s terms.	Hunting argued yes, stating the invoices and terms governed the relationship and required indemnity by Borusan.	Not decided; remanded for the court of appeals to consider on the merits.
Is failure to include case law citations a sufficient reason to find appellate forfeiture?	Borusan maintained that record citations and substantive argument preserved the issue, emphasizing rules prioritize merits-based decisions.	Hunting contended lack of citation and analysis amounted to waiver/forfeiture under appellate rules.	The Supreme Court held case law/statutory citations are not always required for issue preservation.
Should the court of appeals have resolved the merits rather than dismissing for briefing defects?	Borusan argued appellate courts should resolve cases on the merits whenever possible.	Hunting supported the dismissal for inadequate briefing.	The Supreme Court agreed with Borusan, citing precedent for merits-based resolution.

Key Cases Cited

Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585 (Tex. 2008) (endorsing the principle that appellate courts should resolve cases on the merits whenever possible)
Bertucci v. Watkins, 709 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2025) (disfavoring summary dismissal of issues for briefing shortcomings and favoring decisions on substantive grounds)