Smith v. Amoco Production Company
Citation | 272 Kan. 58,31 P.3d 255 |
Decision Date | 21 September 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 84,076.,84,076. |
Parties | GEORGE SMITH, Individually, and on Behalf of a Class Composed of all Oil and Gas Royalty Owners Whose Royalty Payments for Natural Gas were Reduced on a per MMBTU Basis Due to Renegotiation, Amendment to or Termination of the Gas Purchase Contract[s] between Amoco Production Company and Williams Natural Gas after the Effective Date of Order 451 Issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Appellants/Cross-appellees, v. AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY, Appellee/Cross-appellant. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Lee Thompson, of Triplett, Woolf & Garretson, L.L.C., of Wichita, argued the cause, and Gordon Penny, of Lawrence, was with him on the briefs for appellants/ cross-appellees.
Richard C. Hite, of Hite, Fanning & Honeyman, L.L.P., of Wichita, argued the cause, and Dennis V. Lacey, of the same firm, Eric L. Nitcher and Tom Winkler, of Amoco Production Company of Houston, Texas, Steven D. Gough, of Powell, Brewer & Gough, L.L.P., of Wichita, and Eric B. Smith, of Brollier & Wolf, of Hugoton, were with him on the briefs for appellee/cross-appellant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This case resolves whether a 3- or 5-year statute of limitations applies to an alleged breach of implied covenants in an oil and gas lease. The actions of defendant Amoco Production Company. (Amoco), the producer lessee, under an implied covenant to market in a government-controlled gas price environment are also at issue. Although other jurisdictions have addressed the statute of limitations issue, Kansas has not. Also, we may be the first appellate court to be presented with the type of lessor royalty owner claims asserted here, i.e., breach of the implied covenant to market arising in a factual setting under the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA), where the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Order 451 has been invoked by the lessee.
The class action representative plaintiff, George Smith, and others (either the Smith Class or lessors) are lessors under a minority of natural gas leases held by defendant Amoco in the Kansas Hugoton and Panoma Council Grove fields (Hugoton area). This equitable action for an accounting is based on alleged breaches of the implied covenant to market and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, in each lease independently, between Amoco and each lessor.
The lessors claim that from November 1, 1990, through December 31, 1992, Amoco should either have sold all the lessors' natural gas for maximum lawful prices or paid them compensatory royalties. According to the Smith Class, "[a]n equitable accounting was sought to require that Amoco share equitably the economic benefits of the strategic plan it successfully employed at the expense of this class of royalty owners." The difference between maximum lawful prices and the market prices for which the gas was sold would be the basis for computing the royalty owed. The leases called for royalties to be paid on either market value of the gas or proceeds of sale.
In applying K.S.A. 60-512, a 3-year statute of limitations, the district court limited its time frame for viewing Amoco's duty to act as a prudent operator. In holding that Amoco was a prudent operator, the district court only considered Amoco's actions from August 11, 1990, forward. August 11, 1990, was 3 years from the date this action was filed. The district court held that the lessors failed to prove that Amoco, within the 3-year period, either could have sold the gas for maximum lawful prices or that Amoco could have obtained a greater-than-market price for the gas. The lessors appeal.
The district court also found that Amoco had an implied duty to obtain the best possible price for gas produced from the lessors' leases and that it had done so. Amoco cross-appeals the best possible price finding.
The issues for review on the lessors' appeal are whether the district court erred in finding that: (1) K.S.A. 60-512, a 3-year statute of limitations, applies and (2) Amoco acted as a prudent operator.
The issue on the cross-appeal is whether the district court erred in concluding that there was an implied duty for Amoco to obtain the best possible price for gas.
We have jurisdiction under our order of transfer. K.S.A. 20-3018(c).
We hold the implied covenants at issue here are implied in fact; thus K.S.A. 60-511, a 5-year limitation statute, applies. Our ruling on the statute of limitations issue expands the window for viewing Amoco's conduct, and, thus, the prudent operator issue will be decided by the finder of fact on remand. The standards for measuring whether Amoco has met its prudent operator duty to the lessors will include the effect of a government-controlled price environment, as more fully discussed in the opinion.
Our statute of limitations ruling also affects the cross-appeal. The district court held that Amoco had marketed at the best possible price. On remand the trier of fact, applying K.S.A. 60-511, the 5-year limitations statute, and the rationale of this opinion, will decide if Amoco's activities complied with the standards of conduct of a prudent operator. The prudent operator standard controls the pricing issue raised by the cross-appeal, as Amoco's implied covenant to market is contained within the duty to act at all times as a reasonably prudent operator.
We reverse and remand.
This case was tried over a 7-day period by experienced counsel before an able judge. The record consists of 59 volumes, over 3,700 pages, plus numerous depositions, and over 200 exhibits. The parties before trial entered into 83 separate written stipulated facts. All of the stipulated facts were incorporated into the findings of the district court. In order to convey the historical background and complexity of the case, we have set out the district court's findings in full. The Smith Class does not challenge any of the findings.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Woolman
...of the parties’ "mutual intent to contract." Mai v. Youtsey , 231 Kan. 419, 646 P.2d 475, 479 (1982) ; see also Smith v. Amoco Prod. Co. , 272 Kan. 58, 31 P.3d 255, 265 (2001) ("[An implied contract] is the product of agreement, although it is not expressed in words."). Liberty Mutual’s int......
-
Farrar v. Mobil Oil Corp.
...is to market the produced minerals at reasonable terms within a reasonable time following production. 12. Smith v. Amoco Production Company, 272 Kan. 58, 31 P.3d 255 (2001), is discussed and distinguished. 13. Under the facts of this case, where a purported class action claims improper dedu......
-
Fawcett v. Oil Producers, Inc. of Kan.
...(1990) (implied duty to market); Gilmore v. Superior Oil Co., 192 Kan. 388, 392, 388 P.2d 602 (1964) ; see also Smith v. Amoco Production Co., 272 Kan. 58, 81, 31 P.3d 255 (2001). To satisfy this duty, the operator had to market its production at reasonable terms within a reasonable time fo......
-
Freebird, Inc. v. Merit Energy Co.
...(“action upon any agreement, contract or promise in writing” shall be brought within five years); Smith v. Amoco Prod. Co., 272 Kan. 58, 60, 69–76, 31 P.3d 255, 258, 264–68 (2001) (five-year statute of limitations under Section 60–511 applied to breach of implied covenants in oil and gas le......
-
CHAPTER 6 INTERPRETING THE ROYALTY OBLIGATION: THE ROLE OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT TO MARKET
...the issues. [86] 886 P.2d 652, 659, n. 21 (Colo.1994). [87] 29 P.3d 887, 901 (Colo. 2001). [88] 22 S.W.3d 157, 164 (Ark.2000). [89] 31 P.3d 255 (Kan.2001). [90] 53 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. 2001). [91] Id. at 374. (Citations omitted). [92] 22 S.W.3d 157, 168 (Ark.2000). [93] 274 F.3d911(5thCir. 2001......
-
CHAPTER 7 SHOOTING THE RAPIDS WITHOUT GOING OVER THE BRINK: THE "WHERE'S" AND "HOW'S" OF GAS ROYALTY VALUATION
...Inc., 886 P.2d 652 (Colo. 1994). Id § 4.03. For a case that shows favor to neither the lessee or lessor, see Smith v. Amoco Prod. Co., 31 P.3d 255 (Kan. 2001). Id. § 4.02. [7] See Tara Petroleum v. Hughey, 630 P.2d 1269 (Okla. 1981); Hillard v. Stephens, 637 S.W.2d 581 (Ark. 1982); Henry v.......
-
ROGERS, WELLMAN, AND THE NEW IMPLIED MARKETPLACE COVENANT
...cases were decided in 2001 than in any other single year. In addition to Rogers, significant cases include: Smith v. Amoco Production Co., 31 P.3d 255 (Kan. 2001); Ritter, Laber and Associates, Inc. v. Koch Oil Co., 623 N.W.2d 424 (N.D. 2001); Wagner & Brown, Ltd. V. Horwood, 58 S.W.3d 732 ......
-
CHAPTER 9 DEFINING THE LESSEE'S COVENANTS TO DRILL AND DEVELOP A LEASE
...Trust, 268 S.W. 3d 1, 154, n.42 (Tex. 2008); Jacobs v. CNG Transmission Corp., 772 A.2d 445 (Pa. 2001); Smith v. Amoco Production Co., 31 P.3d 255 (Kan. 2001); Sundheim v. Reef Oil Corp., 806 P.2d 503, 507 (Mont. 1991); Croston v. Emax Oil Co., 464 S.E.2d 728, 733 (W. Va. 1995); Meisler v. ......