Exxon Corp. v. Miesch, 180 S. W. 3d 299 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2002), 348 S. W. 3d 194 (Tex. 2011)
N/AOUTCOME: Even though Exxon did not benefit from its fraudulent misrepresentations, Miesch could bring a cause of action for fraud against Exxon for damages suffered by Miesch in leasing to Emerald.
Exxon Corp. v. Miesch held that false statements made during lease renegotiations may support a cause of action for fraud or for negligent misrepresentation. This case involved failed attempts by Exxo ... n Corporation and Exxon Texas, Inc. (collectively “Exxon”) to re-negotiate a 1950’s lease in the 1990’s with Exxon’s lessors (“Miesch”). Exxon wanted to reduce the fifty percent royalty, Miesch was unwilling to make concessions, and the negotiations broke down. Exxon then capped the oil wells and ceased all production. Exxon formally notified Miesch that it had completed its plugging operations in 1991, but it refused or simply failed to turn over all of the well and field data as requested by Miesch. In 1993, Miesch entered into a new lease. In 1994, Emerald Oil & Gas Company, LLC (“Emerald”), as the new lessee, informed Miesch that Exxon had plugged the wells using non-standard procedures and left junk in the hole, which made the use of the old wellbores difficult or impossible. In 1996, Emerald filed suit against Exxon, and Miesch intervened in the law suit with various claims against Exxon specific to Miesch. Litigation from these original claims continued for over a decade with various appeals, reversals, and remands.
