### NUM BER 13-10- 015- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
RA ILR OA D COMM ISSION OF T EXAS, A pp ellan t,
v . GUL F ENE RGY

EXP LOR

A TION C ORP ORA

TION , A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 67t h Dist rict C ou rt of C alh ou n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es B en av id es a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve laG ul fEner gy pl eaded t hat t he l ease went i nt o eff ect i n Febr uar y 2007. T he Com m i ssi on st at es t hat 1 as “ l ong as [ t he C om m i s si on] m ai nt ai ns t hat t he l ease was ent er ed i nt o i n Febr uar y 200 7, G ul fEner gy sat i sf i es t he st andi ng r equi r em ent for b ri ng i ng i nj ur y - t o- pr oper t y cl ai m s. Accor di ngl y , t he Com m i ssi on w i t hd raw s i t s argu m en t t ha t G ul f En erg y l ac k s stan di ng ba s ed on t he s e p l ea di ng s
. ” 2 This i s a n i nter loc utor y appeal from a t ri al cour t order deny ing appel lan t, the Rai l ro a d C o mm i s s i o n o f Te x a s ’ s ( “ t h e C o mm i s s i o n ” ) , p l e a t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n
. Byfour is sues , t he C ommis si on urg es that a joi nt resol uti on by the Tex as Leg is lat ure g ra nti ng appel lee , G ulf Energ y

Ex plo ra ti on C or porati on ( “G ulf Energ y ”) , per mis si on to su e the Sta te of Tex as, su bje ct to c hapter 10 7 o f the Tex as Ci v il Pract ic e and Remedi es Cod e, w it h
re spec t t o t h e wro n g ful pl ug g ing of Stat e Tra ct 708- S N o. 5 (“ 708- No. 5") w as a l imi ted
w aiv er of sov ereig n i mmunity

. The Co mmiss ion also ini ti all y arg ued, by

its thi rd iss ue, t hat Gul f Energ y ’s cl aims w er e bar re d bec ause itl ack ed s tandi ng , butw ithdrew i ts sta ndi ng arg ument i n i ts re ply

br ief. W e aff ir m, i n par t, and rev erse and remand, i n par t. 1 I. B A CKGRO UND Gu lf Energ y

fil ed s uitag ain st the C ommis si on, S uper ior Energ y Ser v ic es, L.L. C. , and Fugro Chan ce, In c., for pluggi ng and ab and onin g w ell 708 -No. 5 af ter agreeing it
w oul d n o t d o s o
. G u l f E n e rg y u rg e d c a u s e s o f a c t i o n fo r b r e a c h o f c o n t ra c t , frau d, neg li g ent mi srepresent ati on, n eg li g ence, and g ro ss neg li g ence. Gul f Energ y

i s i n the bus ine ss of acq uir ing l eases for t he pur pose of oi l and g as p ro d u ct io n . In Fe b ru a ry 20 0 7 , itac qui re d th e 70 8 -No . 5 . A m e ric a n Co a st a l En e rgy Cor porati on ( “A CE ”) w as the o perator

. As operator , AC E had the re spons ibi li ty to pay the
cos t of pl ug g ing and abando n in g t h e w ell w hen i t s topped produci ng
. By 2008, the Commi ss ion dec lared th e 708- No. 5 w ell , i n addi ti on to othe rs , t o be “o rp h a n w ell s” that3

needed to be pl ug g ed and abandoned

. AC E w as unabl e to pay the cos t of pl ug g ing the
w ell and filed for b ankr uptc y . Gul f Energ y ag re ed to prov ide a c ash depos itof $400,00 0 to s ati sfythe ev entual co st of plug g ing and abandoni ng the 708- No. 5, as w ell as othe r
w ell s o n the l ease. G ulf Energ y w as als o s ucc ess ful i n resc ind ing the plu g g ing order and ittook ov er

produc ti on. Stat e T ra ct 707- S #5 (“ 707- No. 5") , l ocat ed on the t ra ct adj acent to t he tracton w hic h the 708- No. 5 was locat ed, was sti ll sc hedul ed to be p lug g ed and abandoned

. How ev er , Super ior , throug h i ts subc ontract or , F ug ro , pl ug g ed th e 708- No. 5,
ra ther than the 707- No. 5. At the t ime the 7 08- No. 5 w as plu g g ed, G ulf Energ y pl eaded that there w ere personne l from Super ior , F ug ro and the C ommis si on on board the v ess el that trav ele d to the 708 No. -5 ., ra ther than the 707- No. 5. The Commi ss ion admit ted t hat the p lug g ing and abandoni ng of tract708- No. 5 w as w ro ng ful. Gul f E n e rgy so u g ht a leg is lat iv e w aiv er

of the C ommis si on’ s s ov ereig n i mmunity from sui t, w hic h w as g ra nted. See T EX
. S. C ON
. R ES . 72, 81s t Leg ., R. S. ( 2009) ( “J oin t R esol uti on 72")

. T h e re a f te r, Gu lf En e rgy f ile d su it a gai n st th e Co m m iss io n , Su p e rio r E n e r gy Ser v ic es, and Fug ro
. The Com m iss io n f il ed a ple a to the j ur is dicti on on the g ro und t hat Joint Reso lution 72 w aived the Com mission ’s immu nity for som e, bu t notall of Gulf Energ y ’s cl aims

. Spec ific all y , t he C ommis si on cla ims a “ w aiv er of immuni ty

onl y w it h
re s p e c tt o G u lf ’s b re a c h o f co n t ra c t c la im , a n d d o e s n o tcl e a rl y a n d u n a m b ig u o u s ly wa ive imm unity w ith respe ct to Gulf ’s tort claims.” Th e trial court de nie d t h e plea , and this int er loc utor

y appeal ens ued.4 II. S TA NDA RD OF R E V I E W A pla int iff w ho sues the Stat e must est abl is h the Stat e's cons ent to s ue. Tex. Dep't of Transp . v. Jone s, 8 S .W .3d 6 36, 6 38 ( Tex . 199 9)

. Other w is e, sov ereig n i mmunity from sui t defeats a t ri al cour

t' s subj ect -mat ter

j ur is dicti on. Id. Th e St a te m a y ass e rtso vere ign immuni ty from s uit i n a pl ea to the jur is dicti on. Id. A plea to th e jurisdiction is a dilato ry plea thatseeks dism issal of a case for lack of subje ct-ma tter j urisdiction , thu s defeat ing “ a cause of action w ithou t regard to w het her the claims asse rted ha v e me rit.” Bl and Indep. Sch. D is t. v. Blue, 34 S .W .3d 5 47, 5 54 (Tex

. 2000)

. Subj ect -mat ter jur is dicti on i s e ss enti al to t h e a u th o ri ty

of a c our

t t o dec ide a c ase. See Ma yhew v . T own of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W .2d 9 22, 9 28 ( Tex . 199 8)

. W e rev iew a t ri al cour

t's ru lin g on a j ur is dicti onal pl ea de
nov o, c onst ru ing the ple adi n gs in the p lai nti ff 's fav or and loo ki ng to the p lea der 's i ntent

. Id. III . A PPLI C A B LE L A W Here, t he leg is lat ure granted Gul f Energ y per mis si on to su e throug h l eg is lat iv e g ra nt,
as set forth i n s ect ion 107. 002 of the Tex as Ci v il Pract ic e and Remedi es Cod e. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 107.002 ( Ver non 200 5)

. Nei ther party di sput es that the sta te w aiv ed i ts immuni ty from s uit

. It is the extent of the w aiv er thati s i n c ontrov ersy
. The st atute prov ide s that the cl aimant may sue for “a ny re li ef t o w hic h the cl aimant is entitled as a result of the de scribed claim .” Id . § 107.002 (a )( 1 ). “T h e c h ie f dis ti nct ion b e twe e n a re s o lu t io n a n d a la w se e m s t o b e t h a t t h e fo rm e r i s u s e d wh e n e ve r t h e le gi s la t ive body pas si ng i t w is hes to merely ex press an o pin ion as to some g iv en matter or thing , and5

is onl y to hav e a t emporar

y effecton s uch par

ti cul ar thi ng ; w hil e by

the la tter

i t i s i ntended to pe rman ent ly direct and cont rol ma tters applyi ng to persons or things in general.” Con ley v. Tex. Div. of United Daugh ters of th e Conf ede racy , 1 6 4 S

. W

. 2 4 , 2 6 (T e x. Ci v. App.–A ust in 1913, w ri t ref’d) . Joi nt res olu ti ons are statement s of the leg is lat ure’s intentas a body and are int er preted as sta tutes

. See, e.g., T ex. & Pac. R

y. Co. v. Sta te , 78 S.W .2d 580, 582 ( 1935) ( uti li z ing the anal y si s for st atuto ry

co nst ru ctio n t o i n terpret a joi nt
re sol uti on)

. Res olu ti ons g ra nti ng per mis si on to sue the Stat e af fect onl y the leg al ri g hts of the p arti es to t he aut hor iz ed s uitand do notbec ome the g eneral law of the S tate. Sta te v. John R. Pheni

x &As soc s., Inc ., 6 S.W .3d 288, 292 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1998, no pet .)

. Leg is lat iv e c onsen t for sui t or any sov ereig n immuni ty w aiv er must be “b y cl ear and
una mb iguous language.” Univ. of Tex. Med . Branch at Galveston v. Yo rk, 871 S.W .2d 1 75, 177 ( Tex . 199 4) ; Tex. S. U niv . v . St ate S t. Bank , 212 S.W .3d 8 93, 9 01 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 stDist .] 20 0 7 , p e t. de n ie d ). Th e le gisl a tu re is in a be tt e r po sit io n th a n th e co u rt s t o w e igh confli cti ng “ publ icpol ic ies assoc iat ed w it h w aiv ing immunity and ex posi ng the g ov er nment to increase d liability , the b urde n of which t he general pub lic must ultim ate ly bea r.” Tex. S. Univ. , 212 S.W .3d a t 90 1

. The St ate n eit her creates nor

admi ts li abi li ty

by g ra nti ng per mis si on to be s ued. Id. As a basi c premi se, a sta te maybe sued onl y w it h i ts cons ent
a n d i n t h e manner

i ndi cat ed by

thatco nsent

. W

ichit a F all s S tate Hos

p. v . T ayl or , 106 S. W .3 d 69 2 , 6 9 4 (T e x. 20 0 3 ). Be ca u se co n se n t “i s p ivot a l to a waive r of so vere ign immuni ty , i t i s i mport ant t o c onsi der the manner

in w hic h a sov ereig n c onv ey s i ts cons entT h e c o u r t o fa p p e a ls h e ld th a t t h e s e n a te c o n c u r r e n t r e s o lu tio n g a v e p a r e n ts p e r m is s io n t o b r in g s u it 2 agai nst t he St at e bu t di d no t w ai v e i m m uni t y fr om l i abi l i t y , and gr ant ed t he St at e’ s sum m ar y j udgm ent base d u p o n g o v e rn m e n ta l i m m u n i ty

. L in d s e y v . S ta te , 8 11 S

. W

. 2d 73 1, 73 3 (T ex
. A pp
. –A us t i n 1 99 1, w ri t de ni ed ).

6 to be sued .” Id

. a t6 9 5

. W h e n co n s t ru in g a st a t u t e t h a tp u r p o rt e d ly wa ive s im m u n it y, ambig uit ies are resol v ed by retai nin g i mmunity

. Id . at697. It is p ro p e r f o r a tr ial co urt t o dism iss claims over w hich it doe s not ha v e subject-ma tter jurisdiction but reta in c la im s in the same cas e ov er w hic h i t has j ur is dicti on. T hom as v. Long , 2 0 7 S

. W

. 3 d 3 3 4 , 3 3 8 (T e x. 2006) ; Am . Motor

is ts Ins . C o. v

. F odge , 63 S. W .3d 801 , 805 (Tex. 2001 ). Gov er nmental i mmunity protec ts g ov er nmental un it s f ro m la w sui ts for money damag es unl ess the leg is lat ure ex press lyc o n sent s. Gen . Servs

. Com m ’ n v . Little T ex Ins ula ti on C o. , 39 S. W .3d 591 , 594 (Tex. 2001 ). Cha pte r 10 7 ha s bee n typically utiliz ed in si tuati ons seek ing redress i n breach of contract c a ses ag ain st the S tate. See id . at597. The le g is lat ure has al so all ow ed w a iverb y res olu ti on i n at lea st one l aw sui t as ser ti ng cause s of

action for inten tiona l, g rossly n eglig ent , or n eglig entf ailure to provide a d eaf child
w it h educ ati onal se rv ic es. Lin dsey v. Sta te , 811 S.W .2d 731, 732 (Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1991,
w rit denied ). 2 IV. A N AL Y S IS The Co mmiss ion arg ues on appe al that any w aiv er effect ed i n c hapter

107 is l imi ted in scope

. It urges tha t a claim not me ntion ed in the joint reso lution is one tha t the legi slature
nev er co nsi dered, a nd th us, i t c oul d nothav e intende d to w aiv e immunity f ro m it

. It sta tes that Joi nt R esol uti on 72 bases i ts w aiv er of immuni ty

from s uiton t he fact that the Commi ss ion ente re d i nto a n ag re ement w it h Gulf Energ y on w hic h Gulf Energ y

rel ied to it s7

detr iment

. The Co mmiss ion urg es that there i s n o q uest ion that the leg is lat ure has w aiv ed it s s ov er eig n immuni ty

i n J oin t R esol uti on 72, but itst ates thati mmunity has been w aiv ed
s o le ly wi t h re s p e c tt o t h e c o n t ra c tcl a im s
. Itcl a im s t h a tJo in tRe s o lu t io n 7 2 d o e s n o twa ive imm unity w ith respe ct to Gulf Energy ’s torts claims or its req uestfor exempla ry dam ages. Gulf Energy , on th e oth er han d, urges i n i t s b rie f thatJoint Resolu tion 7 2 plain ly g rants it perm ission to sue the Co mm ission for wrongfu l p lugg ing of t he w ell a nd th at pa ragraphs 4 and 6 of the resolu tion, w hich refer to a sett lem entand forbe aran ce agreem ent , never tie any prov is ion in the n amed ag re ement t o any bas is on w hic h the pl ug g ing of the w ell mig ht be co nside red “w rongf ul.” W e beg in by

not dis tur bin g the par ti es’ co nsens us that there w as a w aiv er of imm unity as it pertains to Gulf Ene rg y ’s plea ding of breach of

contract . Th e pa rties are in agreem entthatthe legislature has w aived its immu nity w ith respe ct to its breach of contract claims, and w e be liev e tha t if the w rongf ul plugging of the w ell w as a brea ch of the con tract b e tw e e n t h e tw o p a rt i e s , i m m u n i t y f ro m s u i th a s b e e n w a i v e d fo r t h e c o n t ra c t u a l c l a i m
. W e also conclude tha t chap ter 107 preclud es the legislature f rom w aivi ng imm uni t y f ro m su it for ex emplar

y damag es. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 0 7 .002( a) (1 0)

. The pla in lan g uag e of the sta tute sta tes thatthe leg is lat ure l ack s the pow er to w aiv e i mmunity from su itfor

ex emplar

y damages w it hout enact ing a stat ute. Id. T hus, the legislature cou ld not w aiv e i mmunity

for e x emplar

y damag es, and the t ri al cour t er re d i n fail ing to g ra nt t he Commi ss ion ’s pl ea to the jur is dicti on w it h re spec t t o the cl aim for ex emplar y damag es. Id

. § 107. 002( a) (1 0)

. W e s ust ain the Commi ss ion ’s fourt h i ss ue.8

In ou r re v iew

of the remaini ng cl aims , w hic h s ound i n tor t, w e look to the s tatut e, the spec ificl ang uag e of t he joi nt resol uti on, a s w ell as the ple adi ng s t o det er mine w aiv er . The pla in lan g uag e of the statu te p e rm it s s uitag ain st the s tate “for any reli ef to w hic h the cl aimantis e n ti tl ed as a resul t of the describe d claim .” Id. § 107 .00 2(a)(1) (emp hasis added)

. In ot her

w ords, w e mustdete rmi ne w hether the “d esc ri bed c lai m” in Joi nt Res olu ti on 72 is onl y

a breac h of

contractclai m as the Commis si on sug g est s, or w hether itenc ompass the tor

t c lai ms as Gul f Energ y arg ues. The c ause of acti on al leg ed mus t be prov en unde r the l aw of t his st ate a s i n oth er ci v il su it s. Id . § 107.002 (a )( 6)

. Fur ther , t he sta te als o does not g ra nt pe rmi ss ion to re cov er ex emplar

y or puni ti v e damag es pursuant to s tatut e al low ing for w aiv er by resol uti on. Id. § 10 7.002( a) (1 0)

. Joi nt R esol uti on 72 sta tes , i n per ti nent par

t: (2 ) One o f these or phaned w ell bores is des ig nated “S tate Trac t 708 -S N o. 5”

. . . (4 ) In a confer ence on M ay 19, 2 0 08, represent ati v es from Gul f Energ y

Ex plo ra ti on C or p., the R ail ro ad C ommis si on of Tex as, the Off ic e of the Atto rn ey Gene ra l of

t h e S tate of Tex as, Amer ic an C oast al Energ y , I nc. , and bankru ptc y co unsel fo r A m e ri c a n C o a s t a l E n e rg y, I n c
. , re a c h e d a t e n t a t ive set tl e me n t

a n d fo r b e a ra nce ag re ement, pendi ng approv al of the commi ss ion , at tor ney

g eneral, and bankr uptc y co urt; (5 ) On or about Ma y

25, 2008, the R ail ro ad C ommis si on of Te x as wro ngf

ully plugg ed and ab and one d Sta te Tract 70 8-S No. 5 usi ng Super ior

Energ y Service, I nc. , as the plu g g ing cont ractor; (6 ) By June 9, 2008, all par ti es to the a g re ement of M ay 19, 200 8, ha d signed the settlem entand forbe aran ce ag re ement;

. . .9 (1 3) On De ce m b e r 30, 2008, Gul f Energ y Ex plo ra ti on Corp. com me nced ope ration on Sta te T ract 708 -S N o
. 5 in anti ci pati on of compl eti ng w or kov er operati ons and plac ing the w ell in product ion ahead of t he F ebr uar y 6, 2009, deadl ine only to disco ver that

State Tract 7-8-S No

. 5h a d b een wron gfu lly plu gged ; (1 4) One w eek lat er , on Janua ry 9, 2009, re prese n t ati v es o f Gul f En er gy Expl or ati on C or p. an d the R ail

ro ad C om m is si

on of Texa s m et to discuss the wron gfu l plugg ing of State Tract 708- S No. 5 ; (15) On Janua ry 14, 200 9, repre sent atives of G u lf Energ y Ex plo ra ti on C or p. an d the R ail ro ad C ommis si on of Tex as met ag ain , and the comm ission adm itted to wr o n g f u lly plu ggi ng St ate T ra ct 708- S No. 5 ; . . . (1 7) Gul f Energ y

Ex plo ra ti on C or p. ha s c alc ula ted t he know n c ostto unpl ug and dr il l o u t State Trac t 708 -S N o. 5 to 2,000 feet to b e at lea st $1,596, 650; (1 8) D ue to the manner i n w hic h St ate Tract708- S N o. 5 w as plugged, a very real r isk e x ists thatsubsta ntial, unfores een probl ems may emerg e in unpl ug g ing and dr il li ng out the well a nd th e amount of cont ing ency

to use in cal cul ati ng t o t a l c o s t s ca n n o tb e e s t im a t e d wit h a n y d e gr e e o f ce rt a in t y; (1 9) Gi v en th e deg re e of unc ertai nty

i n c alc ula ti ng the cont ing ency , G ulf Ex plo ra ti on Cor p. ha s u sed a rang e of 15 t o 50 percent

of the k now n c ost s, est imat ing the total co st to unpl ug and dr il l out S tate Trac t 708-S No. 5 to 2, 000 feet t o be any w here f ro m $1 ,8 3 6 ,2 0 0 to $2 ,3 9 5 ,0 0 0 ; h o wever G u lf En e rgy Ex plo ra ti on C or p al so re cog niz es, bas ed on ex per ien ce, that any co st ov er ru n c oul d ex ceed the amount o f know n c ost s b y 100 percentor

m ore and coul d resu ltin the abandonment of the w ell ; . . . (2 3) Gul f Energ y

Ex plo ra ti on Cor p. respectfull y req uest s that the R ail ro ad C ommis si on of Tex as prov ide the funds neces sar

y to proceed w it h a r is k- free al ter nati v e l ik e the proposa l submi tted by

Appl ied D ri ll ing Technol og y , I nc. ;10 (24) Gulf Energy Ex plorat ion Corp. a lso requests a tim ely re spons e from the R ail ro ad C ommis si on of Tex as in prov idi ng thes e f unds cons ide ri ng the cor porati on’ s los t opp ortuni ty i n the w ell d u e t o the w ro ng ful pl ug g ing of Stat e Tra ct- S N o. 5, now therefore, be i t RESOL VE D b y

t he L eg i s l at ure of t he S ta te o f Texas, That Gul f Energ y

Ex plo ra ti on C or p., is g ra nted per mis si on to sue the S tate of Tex as and the Rai lroad C ommis si on s ubj ectto Chap ter 107 , Civ il Practice and Rem e d ie s Code; and be it f urthe r RESOL VED, T hatthe to tal of all dam ages aw arde d in the suit auth oriz ed by this resolut ion, inclu ding any courts costs, attor ney ’s fees, and preju dg ment i nterestaw a rd ed unde r the la w, m a y no t e xce e d $2 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0 an d th a t G u lf En e rgy Ex plo ra ti on C or p. may

not ple ad an amo u n t in ex ces s o f that amount i n any

su itauth or iz ed by

thi s resol uti on, .
. . . (E mphasi s a dded.) The un a m b ig uous lan g uag e of the re sol uti on s tates thatGul f Energ y w as g ra nted perm ission to sue and resolv ed th at t h e t o t al of all dam ages, includ ing court costs,
a tt o rn e y’s fe e s a n d p reju d gm e n t int e re stco u ld no t e xce e d $2 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0 an d th a t G u lf En e rgy
m a y n o tp le a d a n a m o u n ti n e xc e s s o f t h a tli m it

. T h e sc o p e o f Jo in tRe s o lu t io n 7 2 a ll o ws Gul f Energ y

to sue for th e “ w ro ng ful pl ug g ing ” and aba ndoni ng of w ell 708- No. 5. Jo int Res olu ti on 72 pla ces an o bje cti v e l imi tati on on the S tate’ s p otent ial l iab il ity . It say s t hat there may

not be a re cov er

y i n ex ces s o f $2,500,00 0. As in thos e c ases w here i mmunity is w aiv ed by ex pli ci t leg is lat iv e enact ment, the l eg is lat ure, t hroug h J oin t R esol uti on 72, has
c re a t e d wh a tt h e ca s e la w d e e m s a “s im u lt a n e o u s m e a s u re ” t o p ro vid e a n “o bje c t ive limitat ion to the St ate ’s li ability.” T ayl or , 106 S.W .3d at 698. The fact t hat J oin t R esol uti on 72 s peci fical ly

prov ide d an obj ect iv e l imi tati on on the S ta te ’s p o tenti al li abi li ty furth er11

ev ide nces an i ntentto w aiv e i mmunity

. Cl ear ly then, there is no q uest ion about the factthat the L eg is lat ure i ntended to w aiv e i mmunity and li mit it s d amag es. How ev er , w e find no s peci fic l ang uag e in the resol uti on li miti ng the caus es of acti on that coul d be ple aded by Gul f Energ y

t o a breac h of cont ra ct cl aim. The resol uti on menti ons numerous ti m e s th a t there w as a “ w ro ng ful pl ug g ing ” and l imi ts the d amag es inc ur re d as a resul t of the wro n gf u l plu g g ing

. W e s ee no li mita ti on, h ow ev er , i n the lan g uag e of the re sol uti on th at w oul d precl ude t he pl eadi ng of a s peci fic c ause of acti on by
w hic h Gul f En erg y may attempt re cov er y for the a dmit ted w ro ng ful pl ug g ing of the w ell

. In fact, t he des cr ipt ion of the “ desc ri bed cl aim” i n the text of the re sol uti on does not ind ic ate a breach of contractcl aim ex cl usi v ely

. W hil e the C ommis sio n clai ms t hat t he w ro ng ful plugging of

the well enco mp asses o nly a v iolation of a contra ctua l unde rtaking, the p lain language of

the reso lution doe s not pla ce suc h a l imita tion. “ W rongf ul pluggi ng” could
reaso nab ly

supp ort a claim for neglig ence . Gulf Energy plead ed th at th e def end ant s w ere obligated to perform their plugging and positio ning and scann ing serv ic e s in accorda nce
w it h i ndust ry

st andards and fail ed to abi de by thos e sta ndards. Gul f En erg y al so urg es that the def end antbreach ed its dut y t o use ordina ry

ca re in e x ercising con trol o v er contra ctors and empl oy ees. The j oin t resol uti on s tates t hat t he w ell w as w ro ng fully pl ug g ed after

an agreem entw as reach ed. Thu s, the reso lution co uld describe a cla im for n eglig ence a s w ell
as br each of contract

. Fur ther , t he C ommis si on has co ncede d that th e j oin t resol uti on g ra nts per mis si on to su e for breach of contractev en th oug h the res o lu tion does not spec ific all y

refer t o the el ements of a c ause of acti on for breach of contract

.12

T he Com mission u rg es tha t the t erm “w rongf ul plugging ” is nota com mo n-law term of arti n an oil and g as cas e. It arg ues that th is term has nev er been used in a repor

ted
cas e
. W e n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e t e r m “ w ro n g fu l p l u g g i n g ” w a s t h e t e r m- o f- art t he leg is lat ure c h o se t o u se i n g ra nti ng per mis si on to su e, an d i t i s n ot w it hin our prov inc e to chang e the w ordin g i n a join t resol uti on. Und er the pla in lan g uag e of the re sol uti on, t he ter m does not appear

to ex cl usive lyrefer t o a c ontract ual cl aim, but a c lai m conc er nin g
w rongf ul pluggi ng, w hich cou ld also en com pass Gu lf E nergy ’s claims of

neglig ence . W hile the C ommissi o n arg ues that Joi nt R esol uti on 72 does not w aiv e i mmunity from s uitfor cl aims bas ed on all eg ati ons that the joi nt resol uti on does not ci te, the p lai n l ang uag e of the
re sol uti on does not so li mit the w aiv er
. The Co mmiss ion al so urg es that the lang uag e of the re sol uti on does not cont ain the
e le m e n t s o f

a ca u s e o f

a c t io n fo r f ra u d o r n e gl ig e n tm is re p re s e n t a t io n
. W e a gr e e
. Bu t , we loo k t o w hether

the re sol uti on descri

bes a c lai m for ei ther

of thes e c auses of act ion

. See id. § 1 0 7

. 0 0 2 (a )( 1 )

. Aj o i n tre s o lu t io n wa ive s im m u n it y b y descri bin g a c lai m. Id. Gulf Energ y ’s pl eadi ng s u rg e ac tual and cons tr uct iv e fraud by maki ng mater ial mis re present ati ons and omi ss ion s u pon wh ich Gulf Energ y reli ed. Mo st notabl y , t he Commi ss ion promis ed Gu lf thati t w oul d pos tpone plu g g ing efforts and stat ed that i t had not plu g g ed th e 708- No. 5, an d Gul f En erg y re li ed on the re present ati on to i ts detr iment

. W it h respe c t t o n e gl igen t misrep resen tatio n, Gu lf Energy urges the sam e factu al claims as it used to s uppor

t i ts fraud pl eadi ng
.13

In revie wing th e la n gua ge o f Jo in t Re so lu ti o n 72 , th e re is n o verb ia ge d e sc rib in g a a s it uati on i n w hic h the Commi ss ion promis ed i t w oul d pos tpone plu g g ing efforts and s tated that ithad not plu g g ed the 7 08- No. 5. The pl ain l ang uag e of Joi nt R esol uti on 72, i nst ead, sug g est s t hat t here w as a w ro ng ful pl ug g ing , w hether i t w as a neg li g ent w ro ng ful pl ug g ing
or a br each of contractas the Commi ss ion has co ncede d. The same pla in lan g uag e does not d esc ri be a cl aim for fraud or neg li g ent mi srepresen ta ti o n
. T hus, w e s ust ain the Commi ss ion ’s first is sue, i n par t, and w e ov er ru le it , i n par t. W e hol d tha t J oin t R esol uti on 72 d i d no t de s c r i be c l ai ms for fr au d or ne g l i g en t mi s r ep r es en ta ti on , bu t di d de s c r i be c l ai ms for neg li g ence. The C ommis si on has al re ady co ncede d tha t J oin t Res olu ti on 72 cont ain ed l an g ua g e de s c r i bi ng a b r ea c h of c on trac t c l ai m. By the Commi ss ion ’s se cond is sue, i t urg es that a c hapter 107 re sol uti on c annot chan ge the com mo n law and the legi slature shou ld notbe ab le to w aive i mm unity fo r tort cl aims thatdo not ex is t atco mmon la w . It then cl aims thatTex as common l aw prov ide s t hat the Stat e is not subj ect to: “( 1) re spond eat super ior li abi li ty ; or (2 ) int enti onal -t ort li a b ili ty absen t a sta tute creati ng an o bli g ati on.” Thus , th e C ommis si on c oncl udes that the leg is lat ure c oul d not hav e w aiv ed immuni ty from s uitfor G ulf Energ y ’s respon deat super ior and int enti onal tor

t cl aims by means of a joi nt re sol uti on. The onl y i ntent ion al tor

ts ple aded by Gul f Energ y

are actual and cons tr uct iv e fraud and w e hav e hel d tha t J oin t R esol uti on 72 do es n otd es c r i be a c l ai m fo r t he frau d c l ai m. The Co mmiss ion also arg ued that absenta s tatut e aut hor iz ing respon deat super ior liability , a joint resolu tio n ca nno t create substa ntive li ability for respon dea t supe rior tort cl aims

. Here, J oin t R esol uti on 72 is not a w aiv er of li abi li ty , i t i s merel y

a c onsen t by

the Sta te allow ing Gulf Ene rg y to bring suit for no more than a specif ied am oun t of dam ages. T h e Comm ission argues tha t the Legislature w ould have to pass a sta tute like the T ort14

Claims Act to chan ge substa ntive comm on law i n orde r to allow Gulf Energy to recover. The st atute grants permis si on to sue the sta te for “any rel ief to w hic h the cl aimanti s e nti tl ed as a result of

the de scribed claim .” Id. § 107 .00 2 (a)(1). T he resolution doe s not pu rport to c hang e s ubst anti v e l aw to create new

obl ig ati ons. It merel y

entitl es Gul f Energ y

to sue for any relief

to w hich it ma y

be ent itled to as a result of the de scribed claim . W e overrule is sue tw o. V. C ONCL US I ON W e reverse the trial court’s den ial of the ple a to the jurisdiction w ith respe ct to Gu lf Energ y ’s cl aim for ex emplar y damag es as the S ta te m ay not g ra nt pe rmi ss ion to re cov er ex emplar

y or puni ti v e damag e s p u rsuantto the s tatut e. Id . § 107 .00 2 (a)(10). W e also
rev erse the court’s den ial of the ple a to the ju risdiction w ith respe ct to Gulf Energy ’s claim for fraud and neg li g ent mi srepresent ati on and re mand to the tr ial courtfor acti ons cons is tent
w it h thi s o pin ion

. The tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of the ple a to t he j ur is dicti on i s o ther w is e aff ir med.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Del iv er ed and filed the 5th d ay of Aug ust , 201 0.