Case ID: f-appx_616/html/0137-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ELECTRICAL RELIABILITY SERVICES, INC., Old Republic Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 12-20474.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 15, 2015.
    Glenn Richard Legge, Karen A. Conti-cello, Jacob Cortez Esparza, Attorney, Michael John Wray, Esq., Litigation Counsel, Legge, Farrow, Kimmitt, Mcgrath & Brown, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Timothy G. O’Neill, Attorney, James D. Kilroy, Esq., Jessica E. Yates, Esq., Attorney, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., Denver, CO, Ethan L. Shaw, Moore Landrey, L.L.P., Austin, TX, Brett Lee Myers, David & Goodman, A.P.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
       Judge DeMoss, the third judge on the panel that originally heard this case, retired before this decision was issued. Consequently, this decision and opinion is rendered by a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c) and (d).
    
   E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:

Following oral argument, this action was held in abeyance while the Texas Supreme Court considered certified questions from this Court in a similar case, In re Deepwater Horizon, No. 13-0670. The Texas Supreme Court has now answered. See In re Deepwater Horizon, Relator, — S.W.3d -, 58 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 330 (Tex.2015). Among other things, the Texas Supreme Court’s answer provides clarification regarding the court’s previous holding in Evanston Insurance Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc., 256 S.W.3d 660 (Tex.2008), a case that has been at the center of this dispute.

When deciding this case, the district court did not have the benefit of the Texas Supreme Court’s answer to the certified questions posed in In re Deepwater Horizon. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s judgment, and REMAND this case for further consideration in the light of the answer given by the Texas Supreme Court.

VACATED, and REMANDED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.