X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Hennig Production Co. hired Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations to perform work on a Hennig oil well. Baker used a gamma gun to conduct the work. During the operation, the tool collapsed in the well, and the Baker employees were unable to remove it. They ended up leaving the tool in the well. Hennig used fishing-like operations to retrieve it. Two months later, Hennig signed Baker’s field service order for lost tools. Two weeks after that, Baker sent an invoice to Hennig for the tool remaining in the well. Though Hennig had by then retrieved the tool, it refused to pay the invoice, claiming the recovered part of the tool had collapsed because it did not conform to Hennig’s pressure specifications. Baker demanded arbitration to get damages for the lost tool. Hennig filed a counterclaim for damages to the well resulting from the collapse of the tool. Twelve witnesses and 87 exhibits were presented at the arbitration panel hearing. Several pleadings were filed, as were post-hearing briefs and oral arguments. The arbitration panel found in Hennig’s favor in the amount of $351,090. Hennig then filed a motion to confirm and enforce the arbitration award in the trial court. Hennig also filed a motion for summary judgment seeking confirmation. Baker filed to vacate or modify the award. The trial court granted Hennig’s motion for summary judgment. HOLDING:Affirmed. As an initial matter, the court confirms that, since the trial court ultimately disposed of this case on summary judgment, it was not necessary to file findings of fact. The court then turns to the two substantive arguments Baker raises: 1. the arbitrators exceeded their power by deciding an issue not submitted to them; and 2. they committed a “gross mistake” that requires vacating the award. As Hennig sought to confirm the arbitration award through summary judgment, it had the burden to prove there were no genuine issue of material fact prohibiting the confirmation of the award. The court reviews whether Baker presented evidence to create an issue of material fact that the award should not have been confirmed. The court first finds, contrary to Baker’s assertion, that the breach-of-contract claim was properly before the arbitration panel. The arbitration agreement covered breach-of-contract claims and allowed for an arbitration panel to consider such claims. The court finds Baker’s interpretation of the arbitration agreement and Hennig’s arbitration pleadings too narrow and contrary to Texas law favoring arbitration. The court next examines Baker’s gross mistake claim, which is based on Hennig’s alleged failure to prove that its repairs were reasonable and necessary. The court instead finds that Hennig pleaded that its fishing operations were reasonable, prudent and in accordance with generally accepted standards. In its award, the arbitration panel stated that it was “undisputed” that the fishing costs were $351,090, which the panel found to be reasonable and necessary. The record, therefore, does not demonstrate that the arbitration panel made a gross mistake. The court also agrees that it was proper for the trial court to correct the arbitration panel’s calculation of prejudgment interest. In the arbitration award, Hennig received prejudgment interest “at 6% per annum until the date of the Arbitration Award,” but the date prejudgment interest began accruing was omitted. The trial court added the date, based on how the applicable statute requires the accrual of prejudgment interest to be set. The trial court did not modify the award; instead, it only effectuated the arbitrators’ award of interest. Finally, the court declines Hennig’s invitation to impose sanctions on Baker for presenting an incomplete record on appeal, raising issues for the first time on appeal, and filing an inadequate brief that misstated the record and made unsupported accusations. The court does not find Baker’s actions egregious, so sanctions are inappropriate. OPINION:Guzman, J.; Yates, Edelman and Guzman, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.