BEAUMONT – The 9th District Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment in favor of an oil inspector in a dispute over testing results.
On Feb. 8, the appellate court affirmed the 136th District Court of Jefferson County's decision of summary judgment in favor of Saybolt LP, who was employed to act as an inspector for appellant Crescent Terminals LLC.
The opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Steve McKeithen and Judicial Judges Hollis Horton and Leanne Johnson.
The complaint stems from a 2012 contract between Crescent and ExxonMobil Oil Corp., which authorized oil inspector Saybolt to test 100,000 barrels of crude oil to that was not to exceed 1 percent sediment and water; however Crescent’s cargo was more than 14 sediment and water causing Exxon to pay a lesser amount for the cargo then agreed, the opinion states.
First Crescent filed suit against Exxon in 2013, but later dropped its claims against it solely charging Saybolt for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract and business disparagement; however by 2016, the trial court ruled in favor of Saybolt and discharged it from all claims filed against them.
In the Standard of Review, authoring judge Horton notes in the appeal before the 9th Circuit, “Crescent challenges the trial court’s rulings on its breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and business disparagement claims. Therefore, we review the trial court’s no-evidence rulings on these three claims before we review the trial court’s rulings on those same claims under the traditional sections of Saybolt’s motion,” according to the opinion.
First dealing with fiduciary duty, Crescent argued as the inspector of the oil, Saybolt contracted to exercise “good faith and fair dealing,” since Exxon’s payment would be based on Saybolt’s report. Citing Nat’l Plan Adm’rs Inc. v. Nat’l Health Ins. Co. 2007, Horton analyzed the relationship between Saybolt and Crescent, noting that in the 9th Circuit’s “review of the summary judgment evidence indicates that Crescent produced no evidence to show that Saybolt failed to properly analyze the samples that it tested that were all taken from Crescent’s cargo,” according to the opinion.
“We further conclude that the summary judgment evidence conclusively established that Saybolt had the right to allow Exxon to direct that Saybolt base its final discharge report on the sample method that Saybolt used to prepare its final report on Crescent’s cargo,” Horton wrote in the opinion.
Considering charges two and three of tortious interference and business interference next for “convenience sake,” Horton noted the 9th Circuit would “address both of these claims together because Crescent grouped its complaints about the trial court’s resolution of these claims in a single issue,” according to the opinion.
Citing, Cmty. Health Sys. Prof’l Servs. Corp. v. Hansen 2017, Horton noted that if Crescent were to succeed in its tortious Interference argument it would have to “prove that a material issue of fact existed on whether Crescent had a contract with Exxon; Saybolt willfully and intentionally interfered with that contract; the tortious interference proximately caused Crescent’s damages; and Crescent suffered actual damage or loss due to the Saybolt’s interference with Crescent’s contract with Exxon."
As for proving business disparagement, Horton cited Forbes Inc. v. Granada Biosciences Inc., 2003 noting Crescent would have to show “Saybolt published false and disparaging information about Crescent with malice and without privilege and that Saybolt’s publication of the false or disparaging information caused Crescent to suffer damages,” according to the opinion.
After careful review, the 9th Circuit found no evidence that proved Saybolt committed either charge found against them noting no fact showed “Saybolt tortiously interfered with Crescent’s business relationship with Exxon,” or Saybolt acted with ill will or intended to interfere with Crescent’s economic interest with Exxon in an unprivileged fashion, Horton wrote in the opinion.