In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. (Supreme Court of Texas)

Procedural record

1. 4 February 2004Arbitration

   4 February 2004Arbitration

   Final ICC Arbitration Award

   International Chamber of Commerce

   Decision summary

   The arbitrator determined that title to the collateral passed from Unidynamics to MacGregor on 10 December 2001, resolving the ownership dispute.

   Participants

   MacGREGOR (FIN) Oy

   Unidynamics, Inc.

   International Chamber of Commerce

2. Date not availableUnited States

   Date not availableUnited States

   Opinion in In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.

   Supreme Court of Texas

   Decision summary

   The Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted KBR's petition for writ of mandamus and ordered the court of appeals to vacate its order compelling KBR to arbitrate all claims. It held that KBR's quantum-meruit claim against MacGregor was not subject to arbitration under direct-benefits estoppel because KBR's payment claim arose from its contract with Unidynamics, not MacGregor's fabrication subcontract. The Court left any remaining lien-arbitration issue for the trial court to determine.

   Participants

   Application

   Petition for writ of mandamus — Conditionally granted

   Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.

   MacGREGOR (FIN) Oy

   Unidynamics, Inc.

   Supreme Court of Texas

   Authorities cited

   25

   • Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16)
     statute
   • Texas Constitution, article XVI, section 37
     statute
   • Texas Business and Commerce Code § 7.209(a)(1)
     statute
   • Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hallman (159 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2005))
     case-law
   • Board of Adjustment of San Antonio v. Wende (92 S.W.3d 424 (Tex. 2002))
     case-law
   • Williams v. Lara (52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2001))
     case-law
   • Camarena v. Texas Employment Commission (754 S.W.2d 149 (Tex. 1988))
     case-law
   • In re FirstMerit Bank (52 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. 2001))
     case-law
   • In re Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. (987 S.W.2d 571 (Tex. 1999))
     case-law
   • J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster (128 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. 2003))
     case-law
   • First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (514 U.S. 938 (1995))
     case-law
   • Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University (489 U.S. 468 (1989))
     case-law
   • Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Government of Turkmenistan (345 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2003))
     case-law
   • E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House, Inc. (534 U.S. 279 (2002))
     case-law
   • International Paper Co. v. Schwabedissen Maschinen & Anlagen (206 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 2000))
     case-law
   • Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. American Arbitration Association (64 F.3d 773 (2d Cir. 1995))
     case-law
   • Bailey v. Washington Mutual Finance Group, LLC (364 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2004))
     case-law
   • R.J. Griffin & Co. v. Beach Club II Homeowners Association (384 F.3d 157 (4th Cir. 2004))
     case-law
   • InterGen N.V. v. Grina (344 F.3d 134 (1st Cir. 2003))
     case-law
   • Vortt Exploration Co. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (787 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. 1990))
     case-law
   • Murray v. Crest Construction, Inc. (900 S.W.2d 342 (Tex. 1995))
     case-law
   • CVN Group, Inc. v. Delgado (95 S.W.3d 234 (Tex. 2002))
     case-law
   • First National Bank v. Whirlpool Corp. (517 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1974))
     case-law
   • Hayek v. Western Steel Co. (478 S.W.2d 786 (Tex. 1972))
     case-law
   • Flores v. Didear Van & Storage Co. (489 S.W.2d 406 (Tex. Civ. App. 1972))
     case-law