Opin ion f iled October 9, 2008



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 1 1- 07 -0 03 70 -CV

____ ____ __ DEN NIS V ERN ER, Ap pellant

V.
PATTERSO N-UTI ENERGY, I NC.; PATTERSON- UTI DRILL ING COMPANY; AND PA TTE RSON-UTI DRILL ING COMPANY WEST L P, LLLP , A ppellee s

On App eal from the 385th Distric t Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV 46255
M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N This case arises from an on-the-job injury

. Dennis Ve rner appea ls from the trial court’s taken o t h i n g s u mm a r y j u d g m e nt i n f a v o r o f P a tt e r s o n - U T I E n e r g y, In c
. ; P a t t e r s o n - U T I D r i l l i n g C o mp an y;
and Pa tte rs on -U TI

Dr ill ingCom

pa ny Wes t L P, L L L P on

his c la ims . We a ff

ir m. Ba c k gr ou nd Fa c ts On J une 4, 2003, Ve rner was inj u re d i n an o i lfield ac cident. He claimed that his injury resulted f rom the improper

operation of a def

ective top drive motor. Following the ac cident, Ve rner broug ht a neg lige nce suit ag ainst the following defe ndants: (1) National Oilwell, I nc.; (2) Pure2

Resource s, I nc., d/b/a Te x as Pure Resour ces, I n c. ; (3 ) P u re Resour ces I , I nc.; (4) Patter son-UTI En e rg y , I nc .; (5 ) Patte rs on -U TI Dr ill ing Com pa ny ; and (6 ) Patte rs on -U TI Dr ill ingCom

pa ny Wes t L P, L L L P. He alleg ed that, at the time of the ac cident, he w as workingfor Patter son-UTI Drilling Com pa n y W e s tL P , L L L P ( P a t t e r s o nW e s t ) , w h i c h w a s c o n d u c t i n g dr i l l i n g o p e r a t i o n s a tR ig No. 488. Ver

ner alleg ed that the def

endants c ommitt ed neg lige nce in c onnection with the oper ation of the top dr ive un it. The thre e Patterson de fenda nts filed a tra ditional moti on for s u m m ar y j u dg ment. They moved for summar

y judgme nt on the following g rounds: (1) that the exclusive reme dy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Ac t, T EX
. L AB
. C ODE ANN . § 408.001 (Ve rnon 2006), barre d Ver ner ’s claims ag ainst Patterson West and (2) that Patter son-UTI Drilling Company

(Patterson Drilling) and Patterson- UTI Energ y , I nc. (Patterson Energ y ) did not owe a

duty to Verne r. Patterson Drilling a nd Patterson Energ y also filed a no-e vidence motion for summary judgme nt on a lack of duty g round. Ve rn e r f ile d a re sp on se to t

he tr a dit ion a l and no -e vid e nc e mot ion s fo r summa ry jud g me nt, and the Patter son defe ndants filed a r eply to Verne r’s re sponse. Followinga hea ring , the trial cour

t
e nte re d a n o rd e r g ra

nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt to the Pa tte rs on de fe nd ants . T he tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r d id

no t sp e c if y the g ro un d o r g roun ds re lie d o n f or its ru lin g . T he tr ia l c ourt se ve re d V e rn e r’ s c la ims

a g a ins t th e Pa tte rs on

de fe nd ants fr om the re ma ind e r o f t he su it, and

the summa

ry jud g me nt b e c a me final and a

ppeala ble. Issues on Appe al Ver ner pr esents four

issues for re view. I n his first issue, he contends that the trial court e rre d in sustaining the Patterson defe ndants’ objections to the ex hibits that wer e attached to his attorney ’s aff idavit. I n his second and third iss u es , h e asserts that the trial cour t erre d in gr anting summary judgme nt to Patterson Drilling a nd Patterson Energ y beca use (1) there was more than a sc intill a of evidenc e that they

wer e contr actor s under the day work drilli ng contra ct and (2) the day work drilling contra ct and the c orporate sche me of the Patter son entities cre ated a duty to those , like Ver ner, w ho worke d on the rig . I n his fourth issue, Ver ner a sserts that the trial court err ed in g rantingtraditional summary judgme nt to Patterson West because a fac t question ex isted as to who was his employ er
a t th e tim e of

the a c c ide nt.3 Standard of Review Where, a s here , a trial court’s order g rantingsummary

judgme nt does not specify the g round or g rounds re lied u p o n fo r i t s ruling, summar y judgme nt will be affir

med on appe al if any

of the summary judgme nt gr ounds advanc ed by the movant ar e mer itorious. Do w Ch e m. Co. v . F ra nc is , 46 S.W .3d 237, 242 (Tex. 2001). We will beg in our analy sis by revie wing the trial cour t’s summary judgme nt under the standa rd of revie w for traditional summary judgme nts. A trial cour t must gra nt a tra ditional motion for summary judgme nt if the moving pa rty establishes that no g enuine issue of

mate r ia l f a c t e xis ts an d

th a t t h e mo v an t i s e n ti tl e d

to ju d g me n t a s a

ma tt e r o f la w . T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66 a (c ); Lear Siegler, Inc . v. Pe rez , 819 S.W .2d 470, 471 (Tex. 1991)

. I n order for a def endant to be entitled to summary judgme nt, it mus t either disprove an ele ment of ea ch ca u s e of a ction or establish an af

firmative de fense as a matter of la w. Am . To ba c c o Co . v . G rin ne ll , 951 S.W .2d 420, 42 5 ( Te x. 19 97 ); Sci. S

p ec t r u m, Inc. v . Martinez , 941 S.W .2d 910, 911 (Tex. 1997). Once the movant establishes a r ight to summary judgme nt, the nonm ovant m ust come forwar d with evidence or law that prec ludes summary judgme nt. City of

Houston v. C lear Creek

Basin Auth. , 589 S.W .2d 6 7 1 , 678-79 (Te x . 1979). When revie wing a tra ditional summ ary judgme nt, the appellate court considers a ll the evidence and take s as true e vidence favor able to the nonmovant. Am. Tobacco Co. , 95 1 S. W.2 d at 42 5; Ni

x o n v
. M r
. Prop. Mgmt. Co. , 690 S.W .2d 546, 548-49 (Te x . 1985). The

a pp e llate c ourt

“ mus t c on sid e r w he the r r e a so na ble and fa ir -m ind e d ju

ro rs cou ld d if

fe r i n th e ir

c on c lus ion s in

lig ht o f a ll o f t

he e vid e nc e pr e se nte d” and may no t ig no re “ un dis pu te d e vid e nc e in the re cor d t h at cannot be disreg arde d.” Goodye ar Tire & Rubber Co. v. May es , 236 S.W .3d 754, 755, 757 (Tex. 2007). Summary J udgment Ev idence The Patterson de fenda

nts presente d two aff

idavits f rom Mark Cullifer, the vice pr esident of Patterson UTI

Drilling Company , L L C, and an a ffidavit fr om Steve J . McCoy , the vice pr esident of marke ting at Patterson-UTI Dril l ing Company , L L C, in support of their traditional motion for

summa ry jud g me nt. Th e y

a lso pr e se nte d e xce rp ts f

ro m Ve rn e r’ s de po sit ion

te sti mony

and e xhibi ts fr om V e rn e r’ s d e po sit ion . V e rn e r pr e se nte d Culli fe r’ s dep os iti on te sti mony , a s w e ll a s th e e xhibi ts to Cull ifer’ s deposition, and an aff idavit from his attorney , Mark A. Cevallos, in opposition t o the Pa tte rs on de fe nd ants ’ m oti on s f

or summa ry jud g me nt.4 The Exc lusive Rem edy Provision of t heTW CA I n his fourth issue, Ver

ner c ontends that a fa ct issue exis ted as to who employ ed him at the time of the ac cident. The TWCA provides that “[r]ecovery of workers’ compensation benefits is the

e xclu siv e re me dy

of an e mpl oy e e c ov e re d by wo rk e rs ’ c omp e ns a tio n ins ur anc e c ov e ra g e
. . . a g a ins t the employ er .
. . for

. . . a work-r elated injury sustained by the employ ee.” Section 408.001(a) . The exclusive reme dy provision of t he TWCA is an aff irmative def

ense. Morales v. M

artin Res., Inc. , 183 S.W .3d 469, 4 7 1 (T ex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). To e stablish the exclusi ve re medy defe nse, a de fendant must show (1) that it was the plaintiff’ s employ er w ithin the meaning of the TWCA and (2) that it was c overe d by a wor kers’ compensation insurance policy

. W

. S t ee l Co . v. Al te nb ur g , 206 S.W .3d 121, 123-24 (Te x . 2006). Patterson West pleaded the exclusive remedy provision as an a ffirmative d ef en s e. I n the summary judgme nt contex t , P at t er s on West had the burden of proving its ex clusive re medy aff irmative def

ense as a matter

of law. Am. Tobacco Co. , 9 51 S.W. 2d a t 42 5; Sci. Spec trum, Inc. , 941 S.W .2d at 911. Cullifer stat ed i n his affidavits that, at the time of the ac cident, Ve rner was employ ed by , and in the cour se and sc ope of his employ ment with, Patterson W est. He a lso stated that Patterson West provided workers’ compensation insurance to its employ ees and that Ver ner ha d

a pp lie d f or and ha d r e c e ive d w or

ke rs ’ c omp e ns a tio n b e ne fi ts f ro m Patte rs on

West’s w or

ke rs ’

c omp e ns a tio n in sura

nc e c arr ie r, L ibe rt

y I ns ur anc e Cor

po ratio n. Cul lif

e r atta c he d e xhibi ts t o h is aff idavits showing that Patterson W est had workers’ compensation i nsuranc e on the date of Ve rner ’s

a c c ide nt. Ve r n e r a ll e g e d in h is p e ti ti o n th a t h e w a s w o r k in g f o r Patt e r s o n We s t a t th e ti me of the

a c c ide nt. I n a dd iti on , h e te st if ied that he wo rk e d f

or “ Pa tte rs on -U TI

Dr ill ingWes t L P.” Hi s pay chec k stubs showed that his employ er w as “Patter son-UTI D r il li ng West L P, L L L P,” and his W-2 sh ow e d tha t his emp loye r w a s “ Pa tte rs on -U TI Dr ill ingWes t L P, a

lim ite d p art

ne rs hip .” Ve rn e r a lso t es t i fi edt h at h e h adre ce i v edwo rk er s ’ c o mp en s at i o nb en ef i t s as a re s u l t o f th e a cc i d en t

. Al t h o u gh the TWCC rec ords attac hed as e x hibits t o Cevallos’s af fidavit showed some c onfusion on the par t of the TWCC and L iberty I nsuranc e Corporation as to the name of V erne r’s e mploy er, Cullifer prese nted detailed e vidence establishing that Patterson West was Ver ner’ s employ er at the time of the a c c ide nt. Sum mary

jud g me nt b a se d o n the un c on tr ov e rt e d a ff ida vit of an in te re ste d w itn e ss i s5

proper if the evide nce is c lear , positive, dire ct, otherwise cre dible, and fre e from contr adictions and in c o n s is te n c ie s an d c o u ld h a v e b e e n r e a d il y c o n tr o v e rte d

. Ru le 166a( c); Trico Techs. Corp. v. Montiel , 949 S.W .2d 308, 310 (Tex. 1997). “Could have be en re adily controve rted” does not mean that the summary

judgme nt evidence could have been easily and convenie ntly rebutted but, rather, indicates t h at the testimony could have been e ffe ctively counter ed by

opposing e vidence

. Trico Techs. Corp. , 949 S.W .2d 310. Culli fer ’s af fidavits wer e suff

icient to establish Patterson West’s exclusive remedy

aff irmative def

ense as a matter of l aw. Ver ner’ s deposition testimony provided additional evidenc e that he w as employ ed by Patterson West. The trial c ourt did not err in g ranting summary judgme nt to Patterson W es t o n the g round that th e e xclu siv e re me dy pr ov isi on in the TWCAba rr e d V e rn e r’ s c la ims a g a ins t it . We ov e rr ule Ver ner’ s fourth issue. I n his first issue, Verne r conte nds that the trial cour t erre d by

sustaining the Patter son defe ndant s ’ o b

je c ti o n s to th e e xh ib it s th a t w e r e a tt a c h e d to Ce v a ll o s ’ s a f

f id a v it

. We n e e d

n ot addre ss whether

the trial cour

t erre d in sustaining the objec tions b ec ause, e ven assuming that the aff idavit and exhibit s were competent summ ary judgme nt evidence , they failed to ra ise a fa ct issue on the employ

ment issue. We overrule Ver ner’ s first issue. Duty Issue

s I n his second issue, Ve rner contends that the trial court err ed in g ranting summary judgme nt to Patterson Drilling and Patterson Energ y beca use fac t issues exis ted as to whethe r they wer e the contra ctors u n d er t he subjec t day work drilling contra ct. In his third issue, Verne r asse rts that the drilling c ontrac t and Patterson’s “corpor ate sc heme” cre ated a duty to him. To establish neg lige nce, the plaintiff must produce evidenc e of a leg al duty

owed by the def endant to the plaintiff, a br eac h of t hat dut y , and damag es proximately cause d by

that brea ch. Lee Lewis Constr ., Inc. v . Harrison , 70 S. W

. 3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 2 ( T e x. 2 0 0 1 )

. W h e t h e r a d u t y e xi s t s i s a t h r e s h o l d qu e s t i o n o f l aw ; li a bil ity cannot be imposed if no duty exis ts. Kroger Co. v. Elwood , 197 S.W .3d 793, 794 (Tex. 2006). A day work d ri l l i n g contra ct cove red the operations on Ri g No. 488 at the time of the

acc ident. I n the contra ct, “Patter son-UTI Drilling Co.” was identified a s the contra ctor, a nd Pure Resource s, L P, was identified as the operator. The signature lines in the contr act indicate that it was6

acc epted on J anuar

y 6, 2003, by “Patterson- UTI Drilling Co., a limited par tnership” a s contrac tor, by the sig nature of Steve J. McCoy , as vice president of marke ting. Culli fer and McCoy

both expl ained in their a ffidavits that the c ompany names listed in the contra ct – “Patterson-UTI Drilling Co.” and “Patter son-UTI Drilling Co., a limited par tnership” –

we re mistak enl y plac e d in the c on tr a c t and

did no t c or re c tly ide nti fy any e nti tie s th a t w e re in bu sin e ss i n 2 00 3. Cul lif

e r s tate d th e follow ingfa c ts i n h is a ff ida vit s: ( 1) that, i n 2 00 3, no e nti ty named “ Patterson-UTI

Drilling Company ,” “Patter son-UT I D r il li n g Co

. , ” o r “ Pa tt e r s o n - U T I

D r il li ng Co., a limit ed par

tnership” e x isted; (2) that, in 2003, a c ompany named “ Patterson-UTI

Drilling Company L P, L L L P,” which wa s a De lawar e lim i t ed p artne rship, exis ted; (3) that Patter son-UTI Drilling Company

L P, L L L P was the limited partner and 99% ow ner of Patterson West; (4) that Patterson-UTI

Drilling Company

L P, L L L P did not participate i n the manag ement or the day -to-day dr ill ingop e ratio ns of

Pa tte rs on Wes t; ( 5) th at, a t th a t ti me , “ Pa tte rs on (G P2) L L C,” wh ic h w a s a De lawa re lim ite d li a

bil ity c omp any , w a s th e g e ne ra l p artne r a nd 1% ow ne r o f P a tte rs on

Wes t; (6) that Patter son (GP2) L L C did not participate in the mana g em en t or the day -to-day drilling operations of Patterson West; (7) that Patterson West owne d, operated, and maintained Rig No. 488; and (8 ) t h at no other Patter son entity reta ined or e x erc ised any control over

the oper ation or

m ai n t en an ce o f t h e r i g o r e qu i p m en tb ei n g u s edo nt h e r i g. McCoy stated the followingfac ts in his affidavit: (1) that he a cce pted the contr act on J anuar y 6, 2003; (2) that, at that time, he was e mploy ed by Patterson West and was not employ ed by , or an office r of, any other Patterson entity ; ( 3) that, at the time he executed the c ontrac t, he knew the contra ct would be performe d by Patterson West, using only its employ ees a

nd equipment; (4) that he should have executed the c ontrac t as an authoriz ed age nt on behalf of P atterson West; (5) that the

c on tr a c t sh ou ld h a ve ide nti fi e d th e c on tr a c tor a s Patte rs on

Wes t; a nd (6 ) t hat Pa tte rs on

Wes t pe rf or me d th e c on tr a c t. Culli fer ’s and Mc Coy ’s af fidavits wer e suff

icient to establish that the names “ Patterson-UTI Drilling Co.” a

nd “Patterson- UTI

Drilling Co., a limited par tnership” we re pla ced in the c ontrac t by mistake and that Patterson West owned, ope rate d , and contr olled Rig No. 488. The re w as no summary judgme nt e vidence that any Patterson entity

other than Patter son West actually controlled or had a rig ht to control the opera tion of the rig

.7

Cul lif e r e xpla ine d in

de ta il in his af

fi davit s the c or

po rate str uc tur e of the Pa tte rs on

e nti tie s. He state d the foll owing fac ts, among others: (1) that, during the t ime period in question, Patterson En e rg y did no t c on tr ol t

he dr ill ingop e ratio ns of

any Pa tte rs on e nti ty ; ( 2) that Patt e rs on

En e rg y did not own, operate, or maintain Rig No. 488; a nd (3) that Patterson Energ y did not employ , supervise, or control a

ny of t he employ ees who worke d for Patterson West on Rig No. 488. Cull ifer e x plained that Patterson Ener g y owned a number of subsidiary Patterson entities and that Patterson Ene rg y ’s subsidiaries “we re maintained as sepa rate entities, with the appropr iate for malities.” A flow c hart sh ow i n g P a t t e r s o n ’ s s u

b s i d i ar y s t r u c tu r e , a s o f A u g u s t 1 9 , 2 0 0 3 , w a s a t t a c h e d a s an e xh i b it t o Cul lif e r’ s d e po sit ion . Cu lli fe r’ s d e po sit ion te stimo ny abo ut t

he Pa tte rs on

e nti tie s’ c or

po rate structure was c onsistent with the facts stated in his af fidavits. Culli fer ’s af

fidavits established that Patterson Ene rg y was a separ ate legal entity

from Patterson West and that Patterson Energ y did not control or have a rig ht to control the opera tions on Rig No. 488. V erne r conte nds that the “c orporate sche me” of the Patterson entiti es cr eate d a

“ sh a m.” Ho we ve r, Cul lif

e r state d that the Pa tte rs on e nti tie s in que sti on we re ma int a ine d a s se pa rate entities and followed the appropr iate for malities. Verne r did not p re s en t any summary judgme nt
e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r ar

y. T h e summary

judgme nt evidence established that Patterson Dr illing and Patter son Energy did not owe a duty

to Verne r. The trial court did not err in g rantinga tra ditional summ ary judgme nt to P a tte rs on

Dr ill ingand

Pa tte rs on En e rg y . We ov e rr

ule Ve rn e r’ s se c on d a

nd thi rd iss ue s. This Court’s Ruling We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

T E R RY M c C A LL

J USTI CE

October 9, 2008 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.