Milestone Operating, Inc. and Dstj, L.L.P. v. Exxonmobil Corporation, 388 S.W.3d 307

ExxonMobil sued Milestone DSTJ, L.L.P. and Milestone Operating, Inc. for breach of a Farmout Agreement over payout notification.
Milestone allegedly failed to notify ExxonMobil that payout occurred on a well subject to the Farmout Agreement.
ExxonMobil obtained a default judgment after Milestone failed to answer; the judgment included unliquidated damages, prejudgment interest, fees, and costs.
ExxonMobil claimed proper service on Donald Harlan (DSTJ’s partner and Milestone’s director/agent) via private process server Barber.
Milestone moved for a new trial arguing defective service and satisfaction of Craddock’s first element; the trial court denied the motion.
The court of appeals affirmed denial of the new-trial motion but remanded to address the second and third Craddock elements; the Supreme Court reversed the first-element ruling and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Milestone satisfied Craddock element (1)	ExxonMobil argues Milestone failed to negate intentional conduct	Milestone asserts its excuse negates intentional or conscious indifference	Milestone satisfied Craddock element (1); remanded for elements 2–3

Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. 1939) (establishes Craddock three-element test for setting aside a no-answer default)
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Drewery Constr. Co., 186 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. 2006) (defines lack of conscious-indifference; excuse may negate intent)
Dir., State Emp. Workers’ Comp. Div. v. Evans, 889 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1994) (analyze defendant's knowledge and acts to determine Craddock element 1)
Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1992) (policy favoring adjudication on the merits; supports reversal for Craddock analysis)
Sutherland v. Spencer, S.W.3d (Tex. 2012) (discusses why a showing of non-intent is sufficient under Craddock when suit papers were received)