» Austin Oil and Gas Attorney Comments on Recent Texas Supreme Court Royalty Case

Austin Oil and Gas Attorney Comments on Recent Texas Supreme Court Royalty Case

Austin, TX (Law Firm Newswire) July 25, 2012 - The Texas Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Shell v. Ross.

Austin Business Litigation Lawyer and Employment Attorney, Gregory D. Jordan

Austin Employment Attorney, Gregory D. Jordan

The ruling stated that an oil and gas company did not have to reimburse a royalty owner for incorrect payments, because the statute of limitations had lapsed. The decision overturned a jury verdict of $72,000 in favor of the royalty owner.

“This case is a wake-up call for all royalty owners,” said Gregory D. Jordan, an Austin oil and gas attorney. “Even though Ross was in the right, the court ruled that he waited too long to act even if he was allegedly misled by the oil company. I hope that all royalty owners will pay attention to this significant case,” noted Jordan.

Ralph Ross's family first entered into a lease with Shell Oil Company in 1961, which required that Shell pay royalties on gas according to the “amount realized” by the company. However, from 1988 to 1994, the royalties Shell paid were based on an average price, rather than the amount the company actually received. In addition, from 1994 to 1997, the company paid royalties to Ross based on an internal figure that the company admitted it could not explain. The company's sole defense was that the four-year-long statute of limitations had passed.

Ross filed suit against Shell in 2002, outside of Texas' four-year-long statute of limitations for contract claims. The plaintiff sought to avoid the limitation through the fraudulent concealment doctrine, which provides in part, that the statute of limitations is tolled if the defendant has misled the plaintiff. A jury agreed that Shell had fraudulently concealed its underpayment of royalties and that Ross could not have discovered the underpayment through reasonable diligence until 2002. In overruling the jury's decision, the Texas Supreme Court found that Ross could have discovered the underpayment through readily accessible public records, and should not have relied on a statement from Shell.

“Disputes over oil and gas royalty payments are common, and what this case shows is that royalty owners need to be vigilant,” said Jordan. “If a royalty owner has any question about the royalty payments he has been receiving, that royalty owner should consult with a qualified oil and gas attorney at that time. Further, it might be a good idea for royalty owners to have their royalty payments reviewed at least every three years to be sure that they are accurate.”

Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan
5608 Parkcrest Drive, Suite 310
Austin, Texas 78731
Call: 512-419-0684

Other Practice Areas offered by the Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan:

  • Business litigation
  • Employment law
  • Oil and gas law
  • Patent, trademark and copyright litigation
  • Real estate and construction litigation
  • [mappress mapid="39"]

    • Texas appeals court rules on consent provision in oil lease case
      A Texas appeals court eliminated a $27.7 million judgment against an oil and gas company in a dispute over a drilling farmout agreement, ruling that the contract permitted the company to withhold consent to an assignment of the agreement. Carrizo Oil & Gas Inc. had appealed a jury verdict finding it liable for fraud, breach [...]
    • Texas telecommunications company sues Comcast claiming tortious interference
      A small Texas telecommunications company has filed a lawsuit against cable giant Comcast, alleging tortious interference with contract. In the lawsuit, Anthony Luna claims Comcast dug up and destroyed cables owned by his company, Telecom Cable. Luna alleges that Comcast workers cut cables and disrupted service to his customers in the Houston area. The complaint [...]
    • Texas appellate court rules against owner of royalty interest in fraudulent inducement lawsuit
      A Texas appellate court held that the owner of a royalty interest could not claim fraudulent inducement with regard to its settlement with a Shell Oil affiliate that operated the oil and gas property. In 2014, a Texas state court jury found that the Syrian American Oil Corp. (Samoco) was fraudulently induced into entering a [...]

    See other news sources publishing this article. BETA | Tags: , , , , ,



    Get headlines from Law Firm Newswire sent right to your inbox.

    * indicates required