Moore v. Pennsylvania Castle Energy Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 18781, 89 F.3d 791, 1996 WL 396332 (1996)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Alabama law, the parol evidence rule bars the admission of extrinsic evidence concerning prior oral agreements when a written contract is determined to be a complete and unambiguous integration of the parties' agreement, especially if the oral terms contradict or would ordinarily be expected to be embodied in the writing.

Facts:

Gladys Moore owned the surface rights to several hundred acres in Alabama, while Pennsylvania Castle Energy Corporation (Penn Castle) held the subsurface mineral leasehold rights through an assignment from TRW, Inc. (TRW), which included the right to reasonable surface use for mineral extraction.
In the spring of 1983, TRW representatives negotiated with Moore for a surface access and surface damage agreement to drill coalbed methane gas wells, during which TRW sent Moore a map indicating six proposed drill sites.
On August 2, 1983, Moore and her son, Gene Moore, met with TRW representatives and allegedly reached an oral agreement that TRW would never drill more than six wells, would drill according to the six sites on the map, and would never drill in a specific fifty-acre field (the 'Field').
On August 3, 1983, TRW delivered a proposed written contract to Moore, offering $10,000 for a perpetual easement for six drill sites, explicitly stating that TRW had 'the final decision for location' for four of the wells.
Moore requested and received a modification to one sentence in the written proposal regarding remuneration for additional easement, which she initialled.
On August 5, 1983, TRW representatives allegedly repeated the oral assurances regarding well locations and not drilling in the Field, after which Moore signed the written agreement.
Between 1983 and 1984, TRW and Moore executed three supplemental agreements for additional drill sites, bringing the total to five, all roughly corresponding to the map, and TRW did not drill in the Field.
In December 1992, after TRW assigned its lease to Penn Castle and negotiations for additional sites failed, Penn Castle began constructing an access road and drill pad in the middle of the Field.
Moore claimed the well drilled by Penn Castle in the Field was the seventh well, while Penn Castle argued it was the sixth.

Procedural Posture:

Gladys Moore filed an action against Penn Castle Energy Corporation in Alabama state court, alleging claims for breach of oral contract and trespass.
Penn Castle removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship.
During the trial, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama admitted evidence of oral conversations between Moore and TRW and a map, over Penn Castle's objections based on the parol evidence rule.
At a break in trial testimony, the district court denied Penn Castle's motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding there was a 'latent ambiguity' in the written contract and that a jury should determine if a separate oral agreement existed.
At the close of all evidence, the district court denied motions for judgment as a matter of law by both Moore and Penn Castle.
The district court granted Penn Castle's motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding Moore's claim for punitive damages.
The jury returned a general verdict of $159,000 in favor of Moore, and the district court entered final judgment.
Penn Castle filed a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a Rule 59 motion for new trial or remittitur, which the district court summarily denied.
Penn Castle filed a notice of appeal from the $159,000 final judgment (appellant).
Moore filed a notice of cross-appeal from the district court's order dismissing her punitive damages claim (cross-appellant).

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 parol evidence rule prohibit the admission of evidence regarding an alleged prior oral agreement when a subsequent written contract appears to be a complete and unambiguous integration of the parties' agreement, and the alleged oral terms contradict the express terms of the written contract or would typically be included within it?

Opinions:

Majority - Anderson, Circuit Judge

Yes, the parol evidence rule bars the admission of evidence concerning the alleged prior oral agreement because the written contract was a complete and unambiguous integration of the parties' agreement. The court found that Moore's arguments for latent ambiguity or incompleteness of the written agreement were unpersuasive. First, the written agreement was not ambiguous; its language, which granted TRW 'the final decision for location' for four wells, was clear and directly contradicted the alleged oral promises to restrict drilling to specific map sites and exclude the Field. Moore's interpretation, attempting to prohibit drilling in the Field or restrict the number of wells beyond the six for which compensation was given, was deemed unreasonable given the plain language and the purpose of the agreement to compensate for damages from six wells, not to extinguish TRW's common-law right to reasonably use the land. Second, the court determined the written agreement was intended as a complete integration. It was a formal document, Moore actively negotiated and made changes before signing, and the alleged oral promises regarding well locations and the total number of wells were not 'collateral' because they directly addressed subjects covered in the written contract and would ordinarily be expected to be included in such a comprehensive agreement. The court distinguished Hibbett Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Biernbaum because, in this case, Penn Castle disputed the validity of the oral agreement, unlike the conceded oral agreement in Hibbett. Therefore, without the improperly admitted parol evidence, Moore's breach of contract and trespass claims fail as a matter of Alabama law. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Moore's punitive damages claim.

Analysis:

This case strongly reinforces the importance of the parol evidence rule in contract law, particularly under Alabama law. It demonstrates that parties must ensure all critical terms are included in their written agreements, as courts will be reluctant to admit evidence of prior oral understandings that contradict or add to a seemingly complete and unambiguous written contract. The ruling highlights that reliance on unwritten assurances, even if made contemporaneously with signing, is risky if those assurances are inconsistent with the written document. Future litigants will need to prove actual ambiguity or incompleteness within the written contract itself, rather than relying on external evidence to create an ambiguity or suggest a different 'true intent.'

🤖 Gunnerbot:

Query Moore v. Pennsylvania Castle Energy Corp. (1996) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.

Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Premium Feature