## Facts

- Gladys Moore owned the surface estate of several hundred acres in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, while the subsurface minerals and mineral rights had been severed from the surface estate.
- A 1907 severance deed conveyed the mineral estate along with certain rights to use the surface for mineral extraction.
- TRW, Inc. became the mineral lessee and, in 1983, sought to drill coalbed methane gas wells on Moore’s property and to enter a separate surface access/surface damage agreement with Moore (even though the mineral lessee had a right under Alabama law and the severance deed to make reasonable surface use to develop the minerals).
- During negotiations, TRW sent Moore a map showing six proposed drill sites, and Moore contended that she and TRW also reached oral terms: (1) no more than six wells, (2) wells only at locations agreed upon on the map, and (3) no drilling in a large field on the property that Moore wanted preserved.
- TRW later met with Moore to finalize a written contract. Moore reviewed the draft, proposed revisions, and the parties agreed to amendments before executing the written surface access/surface damage agreement.
- The executed written agreement did not include the earlier alleged oral limits on the number of wells, the well locations, or a no-drilling area.
- In 1990, TRW assigned its leasehold interest and related rights to Pennsylvania Castle Energy Corporation (Penn Castle).
- Penn Castle contacted Moore seeking to negotiate additional drilling sites. Moore refused to grant additional access.
- Penn Castle nonetheless proceeded to begin construction activities in the field Moore believed had been protected from drilling, and Moore sued Penn Castle for breach of the alleged oral contract and for trespass.
- In the district court, Moore presented evidence of the alleged oral limits, and the jury returned a verdict for Moore. The district court also dismissed Moore’s claim for punitive damages.
- Penn Castle appealed, arguing the parol evidence should not have been admitted to vary the written agreement. Moore cross-appealed the dismissal of her punitive damages claim.

## Issues

1. Under Alabama law, did the district court err by admitting evidence of alleged prior or contemporaneous oral drilling limits to vary or add to a written surface access/surface damage agreement that was complete and unambiguous?
2. Did the district court err in dismissing Moore’s claim for punitive damages under Alabama law?

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit held the written surface access/surface damage agreement was complete and unambiguous and that Alabama’s parol evidence rule barred proof of prior or contemporaneous oral terms that would add to or contradict the writing.
- Because the jury’s verdict for Moore depended on the improperly admitted parol evidence, the court reversed the judgment entered in Moore’s favor.
- On Moore’s cross-appeal, the court held her punitive damages claim was properly dismissed and affirmed that ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Under Alabama’s parol evidence rule, when parties reduce their agreement to a complete and unambiguous writing, a court may not admit prior or contemporaneous oral agreements to vary, contradict, or add substantive terms to the written contract.
- A writing may be treated as the final expression of the parties’ agreement on the subjects it addresses even if negotiations included additional oral proposals that were not carried into the executed document.
- Claimed oral restrictions (such as limits on the number or location of wells) that were not included in the final written surface agreement cannot be used to impose obligations on the mineral lessee’s assignee when the written agreement controls.
- Punitive damages under Alabama law are not available for ordinary contract disputes and generally require proof of aggravated misconduct (such as fraud, malice, oppression, or wantonness); absent such proof, dismissal of a punitive damages claim is proper.

## Conclusion

Moore v. Pennsylvania Castle Energy Corp. holds that Alabama’s parol evidence rule prevents a surface owner from enforcing alleged oral drilling limits that were omitted from a later, unambiguous written surface access/surface damage agreement; because the jury verdict rested on those oral terms, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the judgment for Moore while affirming the dismissal of her punitive damages claim.


Moore v. Pennsylvania Castle Energy Corp., 89 F.3d 791 (1996)