Chesapeake Appalachia LLC v. Cameron International Corporation
5:13-cv-01118
W.D. Okla.Dec 16, 2014Background
- Chesapeake sued after an alleged loss of well control during hydraulic fracturing at the Atgas 2H well on April 19, 2011; Cameron removed the case to federal court and filed a third-party complaint against Pumpco.
- Cameron alleges Pumpco was the fracturing contractor, experienced operational problems, continued fracturing instead of shutting down, and caused flange separation at the wellhead leading to the loss of control.
- Cameron seeks contribution and indemnity from Pumpco for any liability Cameron may incur to Chesapeake.
- Pumpco moved to dismiss Cameron’s third-party claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for indemnity or contribution.
- The court evaluated whether Cameron pleaded a legal relationship (required for indemnity) or joint/several liability (required for contribution) between Cameron and Pumpco.
- The court concluded that Cameron’s pleading instead attributes sole responsibility to Pumpco and therefore fails to allege the requisite legal relationship or joint liability; both claims were dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied/statutory indemnity | Cameron: Pumpco designed/installed the fracturing system and as manufacturer owes duty to Cameron as a component supplier; Pumpco’s actions relieved Cameron of liability so Pumpco should indemnify Cameron | Pumpco: Cameron failed to plead any legal relationship or placement in the same distribution chain; no contract or statutory basis alleged | Dismissed — Cameron did not allege the necessary legal relationship (manufacturer–seller chain) or a basis for indemnity under Oklahoma law |
| Contribution under UCATA | Cameron: alternatively seeks Pumpco’s pro rata share if Cameron is held liable; contribution is appropriate if both are liable | Pumpco: Cameron’s pleading attributes sole liability to Pumpco and does not allege joint or several liability required for contribution | Dismissed — complaint alleges Pumpco solely responsible and does not plead joint/several liability needed for contribution |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (pleading standards: factual allegations must state a plausible claim)
- Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. A.A.R. West Skyways, Inc., 784 P.2d 52 (Okla. 1989) (indemnity principles: noncontractual indemnity requires a legal relationship)
- Daugherty v. Farmers Co-op. Ass’n, 790 P.2d 1118 (Okla. 1989) (contribution requires parties to be jointly or severally liable)
- Dutcsh v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., 845 P.2d 187 (Okla. 1992) (manufacturer may not be liable if intervening modification is superseding cause)