Expert Witness Blog
In the case of Concho Resources Inc. v. Ellison, No. 13-20-00055-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2022), the involvement of an Oil & Gas Expert Witness was pivotal in addressing the admissibility of testimony regarding alleged lost production damages in an oil and gas dispute.
Background of the Case
Concho Resources Inc., an oil and gas company operating in Texas, entered into a dispute with Ellison related to alleged interference with oil production from a particular well. Concho claimed that Ellison’s actions caused a significant decline in production, resulting in financial losses. As part of its lawsuit, Concho sought to recover damages for lost production and retained internal technical personnel to support its claims.
Role of the Oil & Gas Expert Witness
Concho relied on a reservoir engineer—one of its employees—as a key witness to quantify the losses associated with the alleged production disruption. Although not formally designated as an expert witness during discovery, the engineer provided detailed analysis regarding:
-
Historical and Projected Production: He reviewed well performance data and estimated what the output would have been if not for the interference.
-
Loss Valuation: He calculated the total financial impact using commodity pricing and projected production volumes.
-
Reservoir Engineering Analysis: He explained the geophysical impact of the interference, providing technical reasoning to support his projections.
Although the engineer was employed by Concho, his testimony clearly involved scientific and technical expertise beyond the scope of ordinary lay observation.
Court Proceedings and Findings
Ellison objected to the engineer’s testimony, arguing that because Concho had not designated him as an expert witness, his testimony was inadmissible under Texas discovery rules. Concho responded by invoking the “Property Owner Rule,” which allows property owners to testify about the value of their own property without being formally recognized as experts.
The trial court rejected Concho’s argument, finding that the engineer’s testimony involved specialized knowledge about oil and gas production that required expert qualification. The court determined that estimating damages from reduced well output was not something an average property owner could credibly opine on without technical training. As a result, the court struck the testimony and set aside a $492,551.39 jury award that had been based on the engineer’s calculations.
On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The appellate court emphasized that the Property Owner Rule did not apply in this case because the valuation of lost oil and gas production—especially when derived through engineering calculations—required expert analysis. The court reiterated the importance of adhering to procedural rules for expert witness designation, noting that Concho’s failure to do so warranted exclusion of the testimony.
Legal Significance
This case serves as an important reminder that even internal company employees with deep technical knowledge must be designated as expert witnesses if their testimony relies on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. The court’s interpretation narrowed the use of the Property Owner Rule in oil and gas cases, clarifying that it does not extend to situations involving complex production forecasts or technical valuations.
It also reinforced the importance of complying with discovery rules and properly identifying expert witnesses when seeking damages that hinge on technical analyses.
Conclusion
Concho Resources Inc. v. Ellison demonstrates the critical role that an Oil & Gas Expert Witness can play in high-stakes litigation involving well performance and production loss. The case underscores the need for proper expert designation and illustrates how failure to meet procedural requirements—even with qualified internal personnel—can result in the exclusion of essential testimony and the loss of substantial jury awards.