Court Opinion

ID: 9510867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:00:06.195114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:06.868344
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COTTER
concurs and dissents.
¶63 I concur in Justice Trieweiler’s concurring and dissenting Opinion. I write separately to set forth some of the evidence introduced at trial which the jury considered, and which I believe was necessary to and underscored the correctness of their decision.
¶64 The jury heard evidence that other producers, including Somont, often simply walked away from wells and waited until spring, when *240faced with frozen wells requiring repair. The jury also heard evidence that when the price of oil is low, wells are often shut down. In addition, they heard testimony from a long-time operator in the Kevin-Sunburst area, R. D. McPhillips, to the effect that C. W. acted as a prudent operator in light of all the circumstances. Somont offered no independent testimony to the contrary.
¶65 Another matter upon which the jury heard evidence arose out of the counter-claim of C. W. against Somont. C. W. introduced evidence at trial that after Somont’s attempts to purchase the leases in 1997 were rebuffed by C. W., Somont started investigating C. W.’s finances. It contacted the president of a bank to discuss the potential of the bank foreclosing against C. W., and also contacted other mineral owners of C. W.’s leases, asking them to give Somont new leases. C. W. therefore argued that part of its cessation of production resulted from Somont’s interference with its financing. The jury had every right to take this information into account in determining whether C. W.’s failure to produce in paying quantities was justified as a temporary cessation.
¶66 If Christian v. A.A. Oil Corp., is still good law, and this Court’s reliance upon it at ¶ 27 of its Opinion certainly suggests that it is, I do not see how a jury can make an informed factual determination of whether the lessee has exercised the diligence of an ordinary prudent operator, without taking into account all relevant factors, including oil prices, poor conditions on the oil market, financial conditions of the operator, and what other prudent operators do under the same or similar circumstances. I therefore join in Justice Trieweiler’s concurring and dissenting opinion. I too would affirm the judgment of the District Court.