Judicial Insight
Back to feed
& (case sent back for review)CivilSupreme Court

Blanchard Refining Company LLC and Marathon Petroleum Company Lp v. Industrial Specialists, LLC

Court
Texas Supreme Court
Decided
Oct 9, 2026
Docket
26-0118
Judges
Not listed
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 9, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. Court of Appeals: ruled on the enforceability of the contract regarding indemnification.

  2. This decision ·

    & (case sent back for review)

TL;DR

  1. 1The companies are in a dispute over a contract that could let them share costs from damages.
  2. 2The Texas Supreme Court sent the case back to the for review.
  3. 3The court wants a closer look at how a recent decision affects this case.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Does the contract allow for sharing damages?

    Holding · The court wants the to determine the impact of a new decision on the case.

Why it matters

This decision affects how companies interpret contracts when dealing with damage costs.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Two companies clash over a contract that could split costs. Can they share damages?

  1. 1A refinery and a service company disagree over a contract about who pays for damages in an accident.
  2. 2The refinery wants to share the costs, but the service company argues otherwise, leading to a legal battle.
  3. 3They are asking the court whether their contract allows them to split these costs.

Can these companies share the costs from damages under their contract?

Parties

  • Petitioner

    Blanchard Refining Company LLC and Marathon Petroleum Company Lp

  • Respondent

    Industrial Specialists, LLC

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Per curiam
Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 26-0118 ══════════ Blanchard Refining Company LLC and Marathon Petroleum Company LP, Petitioners, v. Industrial Specialists, LLC, Respondent ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas ═══════════════════════════════════════ PER CURIAM This appeal concerns a dispute about whether the parties’ contract creates an enforceable entitlement to comparative indemnification. The court of appeals’ resolution of this case and the resulting petition for review both preceded this Court’s decision in S&B Engineers & Constructors, Ltd. v. Scallon Controls, Inc., 734 S.W.3d 869 (Tex. 2026). The response to the petition and the reply, which both came after S&B, reflect the parties’ agreement that S&B is relevant to their dispute. The parties differ sharply as to how, with each side forcefully contending that S&B supports its respective position. Several amici curiae have filed a detailed brief that likewise addresses S&B at length. The court of appeals had neither S&B nor the views of the parties and amici concerning how S&B might affect its consideration of the case. This Court generally prefers for the lower courts to address legal issues in the first instance. See, e.g., In re Troy S. Poe Tr., 646 S.W.3d 771, 780-81 (Tex. 2022). As in other cases where an intervening decision of this Court may affect the parties’ dispute, therefore, we remand this case for the court of appeals to make that determination. See, e.g., Thomson v. Hoffman, 674 S.W.3d 927, 928-29 (Tex. 2023). We express no view as to the proper outcome. Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we grant the petition for review, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand the case to that court for further proceedings in light of S&B. See TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1. OPINION DELIVERED: October 9, 2026 2
View on CourtListener