HOUSTON – In an opinion issued June 21, the 1st District Court of Appeals reversed a ruling that dismissed Florida Gas Transmission Co.'s claims against the vice president and general counsel of a pipeline maintenance company.
Judge Sherry Radack wrote in the opinion for the court, with Judges Michael Massengale and Harvey Brown on the panel.
According to the court, Florida Gas Transmission Co. contracted FCC Environmental LLC in 2003 to provide maintenance and repairs to its pipelines. In 2012, FCC used a frac tank on one of FGT’s pipelines in Lavaca. The tank was transported to a frac yard, where an explosion occurred, injuring a man who later sued FGT.
FGT sued FCC in 2014, claiming FCC “refused to defend or indemnify FGT, and it refused to produce relevant insurance information so that FGT could assert its rights as an additional insured under any available insurance policies,” the opinion states.
David Chameli, who is the vice president and general counsel for FCC, contacted FGT to request an extension for the deadline to appear in 2015. After a series of emails between Chameli and FGT, Chameli agreed to FGT’s proposal that it would agree to the extension request if Chameli “would agree to demand a defense of FGT, provide an indemnification response, and agree to arrange a meeting or mediation,” the opinion states.
Chameli later informed FGT that FCC had no duty to defend FGT.
FGT added Chameli as a defendant in 2017 after it settled with the injured man. Among the claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with contract, FGT claims Chameli committed tort by breaching the contract he made in Texas, and that Chameli initiated contact “to seek out the benefits and protections [of] Texas Law,” the opinion states.
Chameli filed a request for a special appearance, claiming he had minimal contact with Texas, which the trial court denied. Chameli claims the trial court erred in denying his request and that FGT “judicially admitted that Chameli has no personal liability and that he has attorney immunity against FGT’s claims,” according to the opinion.
Radack stated that according to the evidence, Chameli contacted FGT only after FCC had been sued by FGT, and that “FGT did not present any additional contacts that Chameli had with Texas related to the operative facts of the lawsuit.”
The court order also stated that it was FGT that proposed the agreement for Chameli to demand FCC defend FGT if it granted the extension request.
Radack stated the trial court erred in denying Chameli’s request for special appearance as there is no evidence to support specific jurisdiction.
“The fact that Chameli’s isolated, litigation-related contacts were directed to Texas was fortuitous,” the opinion states.
The case has been reversed and remanded back to the 11th District Court in Harris County.
Court of Appeals for the 1st District of Texas case number 01-17-00823-CV