Sonat Exploration Co. v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc., 340 S.W.3d 570

Sonat and Cudd entered into a Master Service Agreement governing oil field services with mutual indemnity obligations.
In 1998, four Cudd employees were killed on Sonat’s Louisiana well; families sued Sonat in Texas; Cudd contested Sonat’s indemnity demand.
Trial court ruled the indemnity provision enforceable; damages and fees were determined ($20.7 million plus fees and interest).
On appeal, Rule 11 agreement limited issues; Lumbermens sought intervention to raise a choice-of-law issue; Texas Supreme Court remanded for Louisiana-law application.
Remand proceedings focused on whether LOAIA (Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act) barred Sonat’s indemnity claim and whether Cudd’s pleadings preserved that defense.
Cudd filed multiple amended answers; on remand, Cudd asserted LOAIA as a defense, and Sonat moved for and against summary judgment based on Sonat’s fault in the blowout.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether LOAIA was properly raised and preserved	Sonat argues LOAIA is an affirmative defense that required pleading and preservation, which Cudd failed to do before remand.	Cudd contends LOAIA was pled (third amended answer) and notice given; the defense is preserved despite Rule 11 agreement.	LOAIA was sufficiently pled; waiver not shown; defense upheld for summary judgment reliance.
Whether LOAIA applies after remand to bar indemnity	Sonat asserts LOAIA cannot apply because Texas Supreme Court remand directed Louisiana law and LOAIA-specific bar was not properly invoked.	Cudd relies on LOAIA as determined applicable by the Texas Supreme Court; remand authorized its application.	LOAIA applies as determined on remand; indemnity barred where Sonat bears fault under LOAIA.
Impact of Lumbermens' intervenor status	Sonat argues Lumbermens’ intervention was improper and unnecessary, potentially affecting finality.	Lumbermens’ intervention was duplicative; the trial court’s judgment did not rely on Lumbermens' pleadings.	Intervention issues moot; judgment final and appealable; Lumbermens’ pleading had no effect on the outcome.

Sonat Exploration Co. v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc., 271 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. 2008) (remand for Louisiana-law application in indemnity dispute)
In re Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 184 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. 2006) (allowing intervention to raise choice-of-law issue on appeal)
Sonat Exploration Co. v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc., 202 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006) (choice of law applying Louisiana law to indemnity dispute)
Gilbert Tex. Constr., L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 327 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2010) (summary judgment evidence and standard; law-of-the-case considerations)
Land Title Co. of Dallas, Inc. v. F.M. Stigler, Inc., 609 S.W.2d 754 (Tex. 1980) (affirmative defenses and pleading notice under Rule 94)