Premium Valve Services, LLC v. Comstock Oil & Gas, LP, Comstock Oil & Gas-Louisiana, LLC and Certain Underwriters
01-15-00108-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 17, 2015Background
- Premium Valve Services (PVS) appealed a judgment arising from a blowout of the Collins #1 oil well allegedly caused by PVS.
- The jury found PVS 100% negligent and returned damage figures: difference in fair market value of the well $7,562,000; $5,138,000 as reasonable amount to "repair and restore" Collins #1; and $0 for the cost to drill and complete a replacement well.
- Neither the jury nor the trial court made a specific finding whether the Collins #1 well was permanently destroyed or merely temporarily damaged (i.e., reparability was not resolved by the jury).
- The trial court entered a judgment that, according to Appellant, effectively awards market-value-style damages plus remediation costs despite the absence of a permanency finding and despite inconsistent jury answers.
- Appellant argues the omission of a jury question on permanency (repairability) and the measure of damages applied contravene Texas precedent and require reversal or reformation to either a new trial or a corrected judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellees) | Defendant's Argument (PVS / Appellant) | Held (trial-court action / dispute outcome in brief) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a finding of permanent injury to Collins #1 was required to recover remediation costs or market-value damages | No separate permanency finding was necessary; the jury’s negligence finding and damage numbers support recovery | A jury finding on whether the well was permanently destroyed (or repairable) was a necessary foundational fact; its omission is reversible error | Trial court entered judgment awarding damages despite no jury finding on permanency; Appellant contends this is error and seeks reversal/new trial or reformation |
| Proper measure of damages when an oil well is damaged (market value vs. cost to restore/remediate) | Costs to attempt to save or remediate the well may be recoverable in addition to market-value measures; relied on older and prior cases to justify award | Under Texas law, remedy depends on whether damage is temporary or permanent: if temporary, cost to restore; if permanent, loss in market value — court may not add remediation costs to market value; trial court misapplied Dresser and related authority | Trial court awarded amounts that Appellant contends amount to market value plus remediation costs; Appellant argues applying precedent (e.g., Dresser) should have led to a different total or required jury determination of permanency |
| Whether the question tendered by PVS was properly preserved and should have been submitted | (Appellees) Characterize the tendered issue as inferential or unnecessary | PVS properly objected and tendered a direct factual question on repairability that would have allowed a permanency determination | Court refused to submit PVS’s question; PVS asserts the objection preserved the complaint for appeal |
| Whether precedent cited by Appellees supports awarding market value plus remediation | Appellees point to cases and dicta suggesting remediation expenses are recoverable | Appellant contends those authorities do not support awarding remediation on top of market value when permanency is unresolved; cases actually show remediation costs are either part of replacement cost or not additive | Dispute over interpretation of precedent; Appellant argues controlling Texas precedent (Gilbert Wheeler, Dresser) undermines the trial-court award |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. v. Enbridge Pipelines, 449 S.W.3d 474 (Tex. 2014) (distinguishes temporary vs. permanent injury to real property and requires different damage measures)
- Dresser Indus. v. Page Petroleum, Inc., 853 S.W.2d 505 (Tex. 1993) (remediation costs may be treated as part of replacement cost; court did not add remediation to market value)
- Cressman Tubular v. Kurt Wiseman Oil, 322 S.W.3d 453 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (damage to oil well treated as damage to real property)
- Atex Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. [Party], 736 S.W.2d 914 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1987) (well-damage precedent recognizing real-property framework)
- Dowell, Inc. v. Cichowski, 540 S.W.2d 342 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1976) (appeal where remediation was included in judgment though market-value question implicated)
- United States Torpedo Co. v. Liner, 300 S.W. 641 (Tex. Civ. App.—Eastland 1927) (older authority noting recoverability of efforts to save a well; reparability was not contested)
- Basin Oil Co. of Cal. v. Baash-Ross Tool Co., 125 Cal. App. 2d 578 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954) (out-of-state authority cited regarding damage-measure issues; not controlling in Texas)