In Re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.
48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 678, 166 S.W.3d 732, 2005 Tex. LEXIS 393 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of direct benefits estoppel, a non-signatory to a contract containing an arbitration clause can be compelled to arbitrate only if it seeks, through its claims, to derive a direct benefit from that contract. A claim's mere relation to, or 'but for' causation from, the contract is insufficient to bind the non-signatory to the arbitration provision.
Facts:
- MacGREGOR (FIN) Oy ('MacGregor') subcontracted with Unidynamics, Inc. ('Unidynamics') to fabricate elevator trunks for ships; this contract contained an arbitration clause.
- Unidynamics then entered into a second-tier subcontract with Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. ('KBR') for labor and facilities to fabricate the trunks; this second contract did not contain an arbitration clause.
- After the primary ship buyer declared bankruptcy, work was halted down the contractual chain, from the main contractor to MacGregor, then to Unidynamics, and finally to KBR.
- KBR ceased work but had not been fully paid by Unidynamics for its fabrication services and storage costs.
- Due to non-payment, KBR asserted possessory liens on the elevator trunk fabrications and materials in its possession.
- A dispute arose between MacGregor and Unidynamics regarding ownership of the elevator trunks and responsibility for the costs owed to KBR.
Procedural Posture:
- MacGregor initiated arbitration against Unidynamics with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) pursuant to their subcontract.
- While arbitration was pending, KBR filed a lawsuit in Harris County trial court against both MacGregor and Unidynamics.
- MacGregor filed a motion in the trial court to compel KBR to arbitrate its claims in the ongoing ICC arbitration.
- The trial court denied MacGregor’s motion to compel arbitration.
- MacGregor filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the court of appeals, which was the intermediate appellate court.
- The court of appeals conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to compel KBR to arbitrate all of its claims.
- KBR then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas, the state's highest court, for a writ of mandamus.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of direct benefits estoppel compel a non-signatory subcontractor (KBR) to arbitrate its claims against a signatory contractor (MacGregor) when those claims do not seek to enforce the terms of the primary contract containing the arbitration clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Jefferson
No. The doctrine of direct benefits estoppel does not compel a non-signatory to arbitrate unless its claims seek to derive a direct benefit from the contract containing the arbitration clause. The court reasoned that arbitration is a matter of consent, and a non-signatory is not bound by an arbitration clause merely because its claims relate to the subject matter of the contract. Here, KBR's claims for quantum meruit and to establish the validity of its liens are not 'based on' the MacGregor-Unidynamics contract. KBR's right to payment stems from its own separate contract with Unidynamics and from equitable principles, not from an attempt to enforce terms within the MacGregor-Unidynamics agreement. The contract between MacGregor and Unidynamics explicitly stated that the use of a subcontractor created no contractual relationship between MacGregor and the subcontractor, further showing KBR was not intended to benefit directly from it. Therefore, KBR cannot be estopped from avoiding the arbitration clause while simultaneously suing to enforce the contract's benefits, because it is not seeking to enforce that contract's benefits.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and limits the application of direct benefits estoppel in Texas for compelling non-signatories to arbitrate. It establishes a clear distinction between claims that merely relate to a contract and those that seek to directly enforce its terms. This precedent protects subcontractors and other third parties from being forced into arbitration forums they never agreed to, reinforcing the principle that arbitration remains a creature of contract and consent. The decision provides a more predictable framework for complex, multi-party construction and commercial projects where chains of contracts are common.
