Georgia Court of Appeals Affirms Superior Court’s Confirmation of Arbitration Award, Finding That Arbitrator Did Not Manifestly Disregard Law Governing the “Modified Total Cost” Approach to Damages

Gainesville Mech., Inc. v. Air Data, Inc., No. A19A0518., 2019 BL 229069 (Ga. Ct. App. June 19, 2019)

cuozzom_thumb
Michelle J. Cuozzo

The First Division of the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed a superior court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award against Appellant Gainesville Mechanical, Inc. (“Gainesville”) because Gainesville failed to show that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law governing the “modified total cost” approach to damages.

Continue reading “Georgia Court of Appeals Affirms Superior Court’s Confirmation of Arbitration Award, Finding That Arbitrator Did Not Manifestly Disregard Law Governing the “Modified Total Cost” Approach to Damages”

Ohio Appellate Court Finds That Coal Mining Entities Are Liable to Pipeline Operator for Preventative Measures to Protect Against Subsidence Damages

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Ohio Valley Coal Co., 2019 BL 99544 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2019)

surmanr_thumb
Ralph C. Surman Jr.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (“Columbia”) operated a high-pressure gas pipeline.  A portion of pipeline crossed land for which Ohio Valley Coal Company (“OVC”) and Consolidated Land Company (“Consolidated”) held interest rights in the underlying coal.  Columbia undertook measures to protect its pipeline from subsidence damage that OVC’s subterranean coal mining was certain to cause.  An Ohio appellate court held that OVC and Consolidated were liable to Columbia for those preventative measures.

Continue reading “Ohio Appellate Court Finds That Coal Mining Entities Are Liable to Pipeline Operator for Preventative Measures to Protect Against Subsidence Damages”

Supreme Court of North Dakota: Where Contract Provided That Either Party Could Cancel Upon 30 Days’ Notice, the Non-Breaching Party Seeking Lost Profits Could Only Recover the Lost Profits it Would Have Earned During the Notice Period

Cont’l Res. v. P&P Indus., LLC, 2018 N.D. Lexis 20 (January 22, 2018)

In 2013, Continental Resources Inc. (“Continental”), an oil producer doing business in North Dakota, entered into a master servicing agreement, governed by Oklahoma law, with United Oilfield Services (“United”).  According to the contract, United agreed to provide transportation, water hauling, and related support services to Continental in support of Continental’s ongoing operations in North Dakota.  The contract also contained the following termination provision: “[I]t being understood and agreed that either party hereto may cancel this Contract by giving the other party thirty (30) days written notice of such cancellation.”

Approximately a year after the parties signed the contract, Continental alleged that United (i) violated state and federal limits and regulations regarding the number of hours a truck driver may drive, (ii) violated Continental’s policy limiting the number of hours an employee could work in a day, and (iii) engaged in improper and fraudulent billing.  Following its discovery of United’s alleged misconduct, Continental terminated its contract and filed suit against United and other related entities. Continue reading “Supreme Court of North Dakota: Where Contract Provided That Either Party Could Cancel Upon 30 Days’ Notice, the Non-Breaching Party Seeking Lost Profits Could Only Recover the Lost Profits it Would Have Earned During the Notice Period”