BP America Production Co. v. Patterson
263 P.3d 103
| Colo. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs filed a December 2003 class action alleging BP deducted postproduction costs using netback instead of the lease-specified percentage of sale for royalties due 1986–1997.
- Wells were in Adams or Weld Counties; royalties paid at maximum lawful price or as per lease terms; no lease provision authorized postproduction deductions.
- BP allegedly concealed its netback methodology; Royalty Reports and Royalty Brochures did not disclose deductions; a 1990 BP committee recommended disclosure which BP rejected.
- BP allegedly engaged in a systematic concealment to avoid litigation over deductions; Kerr-McGee suit followed in 2001, prompting the current action.
- Trial court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class; Court of Appeals affirmed; BP sought certiorari in Colorado Supreme Court; dispute centered on predominance and Class Time Period.
- Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that class-wide evidence can support ignorance and reliance in fraudulent-concealment tolling and that the class certification was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predominance of class-wide theory for tolling | Ignorance and reliance can be inferred from common evidence | Requires individual inquiries into each member | Common issues predominate; class-wide inference allowed |
| Class-wide proof of Class Time Period scope | Class period properly includes 1986–1997 | Injury only after 1993; period should be narrowed | Class Time Period affirmed as 1986–1997 based on damages ability and feasibility of identifying injuries |
| Adequacy of class definition and administrability | Definition is precise and administratively feasible | Overbreadth risks including uninjured members | Class definition administratively feasible; no abuse of discretion in certification |
Key Cases Cited
- First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins, N.A. v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 744 P.2d 1197 (Colo. 1987) (fraudulent concealment elements and tolling analysis guidance)
- Kopeikin v. Merchants Mortgage & Trust Corp., 679 P.2d 599 (Colo. 1984) (reliance may be inferred from circumstantial evidence when concealment occurs)
- In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 305 F.3d 145 (3d Cir. 2002) (class-wide predominance possible for common concealment issues)
- In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 82 F.R.D. 143 (E.D. Pa. 1979) (common concealment proof can predominate over individual issues)