Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20158/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20158-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20158

W&T OFFSHORE, INCORPORATED, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant Cross-Appellee

v.

APACHE CORPORATION, 

 Defendant - Appellee Cross-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CV-2931

Before JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges and BOYLE,∗ District Judge.

PER CURIAM:**

The court has carefully considered this appeal of a contract breach case 

in light of the briefs, oral argument, and pertinent portions of the record. W&T 

contends that Apache’s use of improper allocation methods resulted in its being 

systematically shortchanged for its share of production sales revenues. We 

 

∗ District Judge of the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

** 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 4, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20158 Document: 00513450594 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/04/2016
No. 15-20158

2

conclude there are no reversible errors of law or fact, and the judgment should 

be AFFIRMED.

The controlling issue, raised by W&T, is whether the Production 

Handling Agreement it signed with Apache required Apache to use the YZ 

Sampler rather than the “shakeout method” to measure the basic sediment and 

water (“BS&W”) content of W&T’s production flowing through Apache’s 

offshore facility for the purpose of allocating production between the parties. 

This is an issue of plain-meaning contract interpretation, yet the parties’ 

contract does not expressly require the YZ sampler’s use for this purpose. We 

are unpersuaded by W&T’s arguments why such an unexpressed requirement 

should be read into the unambiguous contract. The contract is not internally 

inconsistent because it offers flexibility rather than sole use of the YZ sampler 

to measure BS&W. As the district court put it, after considering the relevant 

provisions, “W&T’s duty to install a [YZ] sampler . . . does not mean that 

Apache was required to use the sampler as the exclusive means for measuring 

BS&W.” W&T Offshore, Inc. v. Apache Corp., 2014 WL 198492 at *7 (S.D. Tex. 

2014). Moreover, the contract is not in conflict with Louisiana law and does

not incorporate federal regulations in such a way as to mandate use of the 

sampler.

W&T also contends that the jury was “confused” by this alleged error and 

others into rendering a verdict against its breach of contract claim. 

Consequently, W&T seeks a new trial. Given that the district court did not err 

in interpreting the parties’ contract, however, the court correctly instructed the 

jury on this issue. The court also properly instructed the jury, if somewhat 

belatedly, that W&T did not breach the contract’s Section 13.01, and we 

presume the jury followed this instruction. Significantly, W&T requested, or 

at least acquiesced in, submitting a single, undivided question of breach to the 

 Case: 15-20158 Document: 00513450594 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/04/2016
No. 15-20158

3

jury, and it did not seek JMOL or partial summary judgment on any of the 

other allocation errors it accuses Apache of making. Together, these 

procedural facts and the highly contested evidence on each of W&T’s assertions 

render the grant of a new trial inappropriate; the verdict was not against the 

great weight of the evidence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying a new trial.

We need not consider Apache’s conditional cross-appeal. The judgment 

is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-20158 Document: 00513450594 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/04/2016