Opinion ID: 1789736
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: NMUPA Claim

Text: Apache asserts by conditional cross-petition that if its contract claim for unaccounted-for gas fails, it can recover under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (NMUPA). The court of appeals did not reach this issue because it held for Apache on its contract claim. Having rejected the contract claim, we address the NMUPA claim. The jury charge included questions covering the NMUPA claim. Specifically, the jury was asked whether the defendants deceived Apache by an unfair or deceptive trade practice, whether the deception was willful, and whether Apache suffered damages proximately caused by defendants' deception. The jury answered yes to these questions and found damages of $1,508,674, the same damages it found on the contract claim for unaccounted-for gas. The New Mexico Act covers unfair or deceptive trade practices defined to include a false or misleading ... representation of any kind knowingly made in connection with the sale ... of goods or services ... by a person in the regular course of his trade or commerce, which may, tends to or does deceive or mislead any person. ... [26] Apache's theory of liability under the NMUPA is that Versado sent it inaccurate settlement statements for gas sold at the plant tailgates, more specifically, that the statements failed to provide sufficient information regarding unaccounted-for gas. [27] However, Versado had no obligation to pay Apache for gas that leaked, was flared, or was used to fuel equipment. Assuming that New Mexico law applies, [28] and assuming that Versado and Dynegy made misrepresentations falling under the NMUPA, [29] there was no evidence that these misrepresentations caused damages to Apache. Recovery of actual damages under the NMUPA requires proof of actual causation  a cause which contributes to the loss and without which the loss would not have occurred. [30] The alleged misrepresentations and nondisclosures all relate to Versado's alleged failure to pay for unaccounted-for gas, but as explained above, Versado had no obligation to pay Apache for unaccounted-for gas that was never sold. Versado was only obligated to pay Apache for actual sales of residue gas, and there was no evidence that Versado failed to pay Apache its contractually mandated percentage of such sales. Indeed, Apache admits it was paid for every molecule of gas actually sold. [31]