IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION 

(F/K/A MOBIL CORPORATION),

§

§

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-1873-B

§

AIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE § Hon. Jane J. Boyle

COMPANY (F/K/A AMERICAN 

INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES 

INSURANCE CO.),

§

§

§

§

Defendant. §

DEFENDANT’S SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT

GRAY REED

Darin L. Brooks

Brian E. Waters

1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2000

Houston, Texas 77056

Telephone: (713) 986-7000

dbrooks@grayreed.com

bwaters@grayreed.com

London England

1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (214) 954-4135

lengland@grayreed.com

-andSTROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP

Robert Lewin (admitted pro hac vice)

Christopher Ash*

180 Maiden Lane

New York, New York 10038

(212) 806-5400

rlewin@stroock.com

cash@stroock.com

*Pro hac vice application forthcoming

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT AIG 

SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO.

(F/K/A AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL

Case 3:22-cv-01873-B Document 20 Filed 10/28/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 366
2

SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE CO.)

Case 3:22-cv-01873-B Document 20 Filed 10/28/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 367
- 1 -

Defendant AISLIC1 submits this Sur-Reply in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Remand to State Court and respectfully shows the Court as follows:

ARGUMENT

As AISLIC explained in its Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, AISLIC filed a 

Petition to Compel Arbitration in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on August 23, 

2022, which sought to compel arbitration of all coverage issues related to the underlying benzene 

claims under the subject insurance policies, including the retention dispute that Plaintiff raises in 

this declaratory judgment action.2

On October 14, 2022 the New York court issued an order compelling arbitration (“New 

York Order”), which EMOC attached and relied on in its October 21, 2022 Reply in Support of 

its Motion to Remand.3 The arbitration demand addressed in the New York Order commenced 

arbitration concerning all issues arising out of insurance coverage for benzene claims under the 

AISLIC policies, and expressly included the retention issue that EMOC raised in the instant 

matter. The arbitration demand encompassed the claims of Mobil as well as the claims of any 

other insureds under the AISLIC policies who allege that they are entitled to coverage for the 

benzene claims. In response to the arbitration demand, both Mobil and EMOC consented to 

arbitration, subject to their objection concerning the inclusion of the retention issue.4 Because 

the New York Order compelled Mobil to arbitrate in accordance with the arbitration demand, 

and because EMOC has voluntarily consented to participate in the arbitration, the retention issue 

is now squarely subject to the New York arbitration ordered to proceed by the New York Order. 

1 Unless stated otherwise, defined terms in this sur-reply have the same definitions provided in AISLIC’s Response 

to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. 

2 See Dkt. No. 10, p.2, n.2.

3 See Dkt. No. 15-2, Ex. 2-A to Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Remand.

4 See Dkt. No. 15-2, Ex. 2-A to Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Remand at p. 4.

Case 3:22-cv-01873-B Document 20 Filed 10/28/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 368
2

Accordingly, upon resolution of Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ASLIC intends to seek relief 

from this Court to stay or dismiss this lawsuit in favor of the New York arbitration. 

EMOC attached the New York Order as evidence in support of its reply and incorrectly 

argued that the rulings set forth in the New York Order support Plaintiff’s position on remand 

here.

5

 Specifically, Plaintiff misstates the New York court’s holding, claiming that “AISLIC’s 

argument that Mobil is the actual plaintiff in this case has recently been rejected in a separate 

action filed by AISLIC against Mobil in New York.”6 To the contrary, in connection with the 

relationship between EMOC and Mobil, the New York court stated:

The Court has no idea whether respondent [Mobil] and 

ExxonMobil are playing fast and loose with corporate identities. 

But this is not the proper forum or application for this Court to 

explore the relationship between these entities or respondent’s 

corporate status. There is no doubt that the Texas court can 

adequately consider those issues should petitioner insist that the 

respondent here is a necessary party in the Texas lawsuit and seek 

relief from the now-alleged “scrivener’s error.”7

The New York court clearly did not “reject” AISLIC’s position that the “f/k/a” 

designation means that Mobil is the sole (and correct) party to the instant lawsuit. Instead, the 

New York court simply deferred to this Court without expressing a view as to whether Mobil and 

EMOC are “playing fast and loose” with their corporate identities in order to avoid diversity 

jurisdiction. That is precisely what EMOC and Mobil are doing. 

As AISLIC set forth in its Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, Plaintiff’s Original 

Petition expressly asserts the rights of Mobil via the “f/k/a” designation because the AISLIC 

Policies require Mobil to bring all suits as the Named Insured. Accordingly, Mobil is the real 

5 See Dkt. No. 15-2; Dkt. No. 14, pp. 6-7.

6 See Dkt. No. 14, pp. 6-7.

7 See Dkt. No. 15-2, App. 40.

Case 3:22-cv-01873-B Document 20 Filed 10/28/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 369
3

party in interest, and this Court has diversity jurisdiction because Mobil’s corporate citizenship is 

fully diverse from that of AISLIC.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, and in its Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, 

AISLIC respectfully requests the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court and

retain jurisdiction because the real parties in interest are diverse.

Dated: October 27, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

GRAY REED

By: /s/ Brian E. Waters

Darin L. Brooks

Texas Bar No. 00796252

Brian E. Waters

Texas Bar No. 24078035

1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2000

Houston, Texas 77056

Telephone: (713) 986-7000

Facsimile: (713) 986-7100 

Email: dbrooks@grayreed.com

bwaters@grayreed.com

London England

Texas Bar No. 24110313

1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (214) 954-4135

Facsimile: (214) 953-1332

Email: lengland@grayreed.com

-andSTROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP

By: /s/ Robert Lewin

Robert Lewin (admitted pro hac vice)

Christopher Ash*

180 Maiden Lane

New York, New York 10038

(212) 806-5400

rlewin@stroock.com

cash@stroock.com

*Pro hac vice application forthcoming

Case 3:22-cv-01873-B Document 20 Filed 10/28/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 370
4

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT AIG 

SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO.

(F/K/A AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL

SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE CO.)

Case 3:22-cv-01873-B Document 20 Filed 10/28/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 371
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On October 27, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was forwarded 

to the following counsel of record in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

Ernest Martin, Jr.

Adrian Azer

Greg Van Houton

Mike Stoner

Benjamin Schindler

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700

Dallas, TX 75219-7672

ernest.martin@haynesboone.com 

adrian.azer@haynesboone.com

greg.vanhouten@haynesboone.com

michael.stoner@haynesboone.com

s.benjamin.schindler@haynesboone.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ Brian E. Waters

Brian E. Waters

Case 3:22-cv-01873-B Document 20 Filed 10/28/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID 372