Litigation Case Results

On March 25, 2019, a jury in Anadarko, Oklahoma, issued a unanimous verdict in favor of Range Resources Corporation (Range), rejecting claims by 11 plaintiffs that Range had underpaid their royalties. The plaintiffs had opted out of an earlier class action settlement and brought individual claims alleging Range had underpaid royalties on gas production from 13 different wells. Range maintained it had properly paid royalties on the proceeds received by it from selling the gas production at or near the wells to various third-party purchasers under percentage-of-proceeds or percentage-of-index contracts, and that the gas was a marketable product when so sold. Typical of many cases making similar claims, plaintiffs contended the percentage-of-proceeds and percentage-of-index sales were disguised “service” agreements, and that the gas was not marketable until after it was processed at the buyers’ downstream processing plants. Following a two-week trial, the Court submitted the case to the jury on plaintiffs’ claims of breach of lease, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Range and against all plaintiffs on all claims.

GableGotwals obtained summary judgment on behalf of a national property and casualty insurance carrier in Federal Court in Muskogee. A man attempted to rob a bank, and in the process, killed the bank’s president, took a customer hostage, and fled the bank. The hostage was shot during the police pursuit and subsequently sued the bank, claiming she was injured because there was too much access to the bank and not enough security. The carrier filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a ruling that its policy did not provide coverage for the hostage’s claims. The Court ruled in the carrier’s favor, holding that the policy was not ambiguous and that the carrier had no duty to indemnify or defend the bank for the claims being brought by the hostage. The Court stated that the policy did not cover intentional acts (such as the kidnapping and resulting injuries) and that the policy specifically excluded claims arising out of incidents of assault and battery.

Go to Top