Crosstex Energy Services, LP, Crosstex LIG, LLC and Crosstex Processing Services, LLC VS Texas Brine Company, LLC, et al

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

060M.."• i . 141.0iM[ftly.I & LfAl EMAMAEAEAMM Attorneys Leopold Z. Sher Garner James d i Party Plaintiff/Appella1 B Company, Peter L. Hilbert Neal i'; Jeffrey D. Amanda ' Schenck New Orleans, i .' and Roby_ Ryland Percy Gonzales, i w w: and Travis Gonzales, and Eric 1. Mayer Houston, Texas Thear 1. Lemoine New Orleans, i Attorney i w w: rd Party Defendant/ Appellee NationalSuretyCorporation This appeal relates to one of several lawsuits arising from the August 2012 ippearance of a sinkhole near Bayou Come in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. 10: I I I Ii 1 1 M= Here, ggl[ National Surety Corporation, the homeowner's insurer of Sol Kirschner. The judgmen) IRE? I I: WRIEZIFF715 i ll Jlli• `/ 1 E EMEMEMEM we should defer action here until separate appeals involving Mr. Kirschner wera resolved. On October 10, 2018, we granted National Surety' s motion to stay unti' IN1511''i ii I MOMENT! 341 liiisg 11 liii against Mr. Kirschner. M I p Iii glu Crosstex et al. v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, et al., 18- 0749 ( La. AMMUR4,111011012121 I 11111il l E 18- 1213 ( al. v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, et al, 3049762 ( Crosstex 1213), writ denied, ( La. 11111111111 1111111 Igni il La. App. 1 Cir. 7/ 11/ 19), 2019 WL 11/ 12/ 19), So. 3d On May 21, IFIF where the plaintiff has a substantive cause of action against the insured. 13 1 R I ii i F I, I 1111 I IN we affirmed that judgment in Cro55tex 0749. 0 I 111 1 20EUMErt. 1= 1- 5oileau M MMEM The trial court also dismissed TexE2. Grosstex 1213.1 Thus, as a result of our decisions, Texas Brine no longer has a substantive cause of action against Mr. Kirschner; and, Texas Brine no longer has E IFRI 0= 4 moot. 0 OVER IT 1/ I S air ( See We115 FJrgo 63nk, N.A. v. Tonagel, IIEFT NEW!, 1111MI WIM 1 11 2013 La. App. I Cir. • 1 111 1 1 appeal to Texas Brinel FAU: 243 4 931141 Uyl I I — 1 Direct actions against insurers are limited to tort liability; but, a lawsuit setting forth numerous theories of recovery may, in some circumstances, proceed under the Direct Construction Services, Inc. v. Poche, 11- 1474 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 3/ 14/ 12), Panel Era Mfg. Co., 4 10 So. 2d 1230, 1235- 36 ( La. App. 3 Cir. 1982). 2 on this cost assessment, we --• Action Statute. See MenL7 87 So. 3d 273, 276; Champion v, not address National Surety' s post -argument Motion I Determination or Allocation of Appeal Costs, or, In the Alternative, Motion for Leave to File Posm I Argument Brief. 0

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.