Reliant Energy Services, Inc. v. Cotton Valley Compression, L.L.C.
336 S.W.3d 764
Tex. App.2011Background
- Cotton Valley sued Reliant for July 2001 gas under theories of actual and apparent agency by Westfield.
- Westfield acted as broker/agent between Cotton Valley and Reliant, with no explicit written agency agreement.
- Cotton Valley believed Westfield aggregated gas for Reliant and used Reliant’s escrow to pay producers.
- Nominations and accounting/payments were routed through Reliant and Westfield, with complex balancing/imbalance transfers.
- Jury found apparent authority and actual authority; JNOV granted on actual authority; separate issues of quasi-estoppel and evidentiary rulings arose.
- Appellate court affirmed judgment in Cotton Valley’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apparent authority sufficiency | Cotton Valley showed Reliant’s conduct created apparent authority | No reliance or principal conduct established apparent authority | Yes, evidence supports apparent authority |
| Actual authority sufficiency | Gouge acted within Reliant’s authority to obtain Cotton Valley gas | No evidence of an agreement Westfield acted for Reliant | No substantial evidence of actual authority; JNOV affirmed on this ground |
| Quasi-estoppel as a defense | Reliant’s estoppel bar should preclude Cotton Valley’s claim | Quasi-estoppel not established as a matter of law | No; issue reserved for factual sufficiency review |
| Evidentiary rulings | Challenged evidence relevant to actual authority | Admission proper; not outcome-determinative | No reversible error; evidence admissible under Rule 105/395 |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard; authoritative framework)
- Dow Chemical Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (two-step sufficiency review when burden of proof borne by party)
- Pac. Employers Ins. Co. v. Dayton, 958 S.W.2d 452 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1997) (two-part test for appellate review of verdicts)
- Victoria Bank & Trust Co. v. Brady, 811 S.W.2d 931 (Tex. 1991) (method of assessing evidence in sufficiency review)
- Behring Int’l, Inc. v. Greater Houston Bank, 662 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1983) (actual authority/implied authority principles)