Court Opinion

ID: 9371348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 21:10:43.05067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:27.491323
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                              WESTERN DISTRICT

DRESSLER FAMILY, LP,                            : No. 208 WAL 2022
                                                :
                     Respondent                 :
                                                : Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                                : from the Order of the Superior Court
              v.                                :
                                                :
                                                :
PENNENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, AS                   :
SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO R.E. GAS               :
DEVELOPMENT, LLC,                               :
                                                :
                     Petitioner                 :

                                        ORDER

PER CURIAM

      AND NOW, this 15th day of February, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

      (1)    Whether the Superior Court’s decision failed to apply how this Court defined
             the key Lease terms in Kilmer v. Elexco Land Services, Inc., 990 A.2d 1147
             (Pa. 2010), and violated the longstanding principle that custom and usage
             in an industry or trade is always admissible to show that a contract is
             unambiguous.

      (2)    Whether the Lease unambiguously allows for the deduction of
             post[-]production costs is a key question to Pennsylvania’s oil and gas
             industry, which needs the guidance this Court’s review will provide.

      (3)    Whether the Superior Court’s decision breaks from other courts that have
             interpreted materially identical lease language, and leaves Pennsylvania as
             an outlier in not recognizing the significance of common oil and gas lease
             terms.

      (4)    Whether the Superior Court’s decision violated the longstanding principles
             set by this Court that, to be found ambiguous, a contract must be interpreted
             to give effect to all of its terms and be subject to a second reasonable
             interpretation.