ConocoPhillips Company v. Apro, LLC CA2/5
This is the second appeal in which we are asked to decide whether cross-complainants and appellants ConocoPhillips Company and Phillips 66 Company (collectively, ConocoPhillips) sufficiently stated a claim for breach of contract based on an alleged failure to defend and indemnify. ConocoPhillips and several others were named defendants in a complaint Felipe and Maria Mireles filed for injuries Felipe suffered as the result of a propane fire at a 76-branded gas station. ConocoPhillips, which owns the 76 brand and licenses it to other entities, filed a cross-complaint seeking indemnity from Pacific Convenience & Fuels, LLC (Pacific), Convenience Retailers, LLC (Convenience), Sam and Shireen Hirbod (the Hirbods), Apro, LLC (Apro), Suburban Propane, LP (Suburban), Field Energy Corporation (Field Energy), and Stephen Dakay (Dakay). The trial court entered judgment on the pleadings for Apro, and we consider whether certain contractual language that requires Apro to indemnify ConocoPhillip
Comments on ConocoPhillips Company v. Apro, LLC CA2/5