Anadarko wished to produce minerals beneath the Chaparral Wildlife Management Area controlled by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, which, though possible, was subject to considerable restrictions and expensive. 

This dispute arose out of Exxon’s attempt to obtain coverage as an additional insured under the umbrella policy issued to one of its contractors for its exposure arising from the April 2013 Exxon refinery fire which resulted in injuries to at least ten people, two of whom subsequently died. Exxon sued Lexington, as the umbrella carrier of Brock Services, who had three employees injured in the fire, for coverage. Lexington responded by moving to compel arbitration based on the arbitration clause in their policy. The trial court instead ruled the coverage dispute was easily determined “by a factual analysis requiring no interpretation of the policy itself,” and denied arbitration.

In Aldous v. Darwin Nat’l Assurance Co., he plaintiffs, Charla Aldous and her law firm Charla G. Aldous, P.C. d/b/a Aldous Law Firm, sued their professional liability insurer, Darwin National Assurance Company, regarding defense costs Darwin owed, where plaintiffs’ attorney in the underlying malpractice suit also pursued claims for the insured and against the former client. 

In Ledet v. Parker Drilling Offshore USA, L.L.C., et al., following de novo review, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal found the trial court committed reversible error in resolving disputed factual issues and granting summary judgment in Defendants’ favor.

“California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration,” and therefore, courts generally enforce arbitration clauses unless it is clear that the language of the clause does not cover the asserted dispute. 

On June 9, 2017, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB 807 into law. In doing so, it will cause more litigation related to Texas construction projects to remain in Texas.

Effective January 1, 2017, the Legislature has enacted a significant change to California’s strict contractor’s licensing law, providing some relief to contractors who have allowed their license to lapse through oversight or inadvertence – provided they can show that they acted “promptly and in good faith” in fixing the mistake. 

More than eight years ago, the California Supreme Court handed down Crawford v. Weather Shield (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541, holding that a contractual indemnitor must immediately assume an indemnitee’s defense, irrespective of whether it is determined that indemnity is actually owed.