Court Opinion

ID: 9535400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:48:56.246384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:14.377480
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion and much of the rationale contained therein. I write separately to note that I am uncomfortable with footnote 1 which concludes that “[t]he circumstances in this case do not suggest that any measure other than market value would be appropriate” although recognizing that other measures of damages may apply when market value will not fully compensate. I am not as convinced, as is the majority, that those circumstances are not present in this case.
The failure of Tenneco to recall the reassignment clauses and their responsibility thereunder (the majority characterizes Ten-neco as being “unaware” of the reassignment clauses) and the result such a recognition might have had with regard to the unit negotiations in which Tenneco was involved with Koch, wherein Koch was considering the formation of a secondary recovery unit, is unknown. Although the unit did not become effective until after the bottom leases had expired and the top leases began, it appears probable that the negotiations had taken place prior to that time and that the terms of the unit, including the participation factors, were well established by that time.
If there is evidence that Golden would have been in a position to receive a more favorable share of unit production had Ten-neco recognized their reassignment responsibilities under the clauses, resulting in Golden being asked to participate in unit negotiations directly, I would not foreclose *721evidence thereof by limiting, at this time, the damages to market value.