TBCblog

Comprehensive coverage of the Texas Business Court

Operated by

Reese Marketos LLP

Dallas, Texas  ·  Complex Commercial Litigation

← The Bench
Portrait of Hon. Melissa Davis Andrews

Hon. Melissa Davis Andrews

Judge · Seat 3A

Texas Business Court · Third Business Court Division (Austin)

Biography

Melissa Andrews is a judge on the Texas Business Court, where she serves in the Third Division in Austin, Texas. Judge Andrews is Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Before coming to the bench, she focused her legal practice on appellate briefing and oral argument, strategic dispositive motions, expert challenges, preservation of error, and jury charges. She has represented clients in the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Texas, several United States Courts of Appeals, and trial and appellate courts across the county. She also previously worked at the Supreme Court of Texas as an attorney for Justice Jeff Boyd and a law clerk for Justice Don Willett (now serving on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals), as well as at the First Court of Appeals as an attorney for Justice Harvey Brown. She is currently the immediate past Chair of the Austin Bar Association’s Civil Appellate Section. She also serves on the Texas Board of Legal Specialization’s Advisory Commissions for Civil Appellate Law as well as for Judicial Administration. She is a frequent CLE presenter and has authored several law review articles. She received her Juris Doctorate from the University of Texas School of Law, where she was a member of the Texas Law Review, served as a Teaching Quizmaster, and graduated with honors. She received her Bachelor of Science degree from Texas A&M University, where she graduated magna cum laude.

Source: txcourts.gov

Opinions by Judge Andrews (4)

Contract Interpretation ×
2026 Tex. Bus. 26 Summary Judgment May 13, 2026

Delaware's Implied Covenant of Good Faith Governs Ethylene Supply Contract Dispute in First-of-Refusal Nomination Case

In Westlake Longview v. Eastman Chemical, the Texas Business Court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment on declaratory claims interpreting a Delaware-governed ethylene sales and exchange agreement, addressing whether Eastman must nominate all "Excess Ethylene Quantities" in annual and monthly processes and whether third-party spot sales exempt ethylene from nomination requirements. The memorandum opinion applies Delaware contract-interpretation principles—including freedom of contract, plain meaning, and objective construction—to construe a right-of-first-refusal structure governing ethylene production, purchase, and pipeline exchange rights following Eastman's sale of polyethylene facilities to Westlake.

Mem. Op. Summary Judgment Contract Interpretation Choice of Law Delaware Law Implied Covenant of Good Faith Opinion PDF ↓
2025 Tex. Bus. 40 Summary Judgment October 28, 2025

Liquidated Damages Enforceability Turns on Fact Issues in Natural Gas Contract Dispute

In Marathon Oil v. Mercuria Energy America, the Business Court of Texas held that material fact disputes preclude summary determination of whether a NAESB Base Contract "Spot Price Standard" liquidated-damages clause operates as an unenforceable penalty under the "unbridgeable discrepancy" standard. The court rejected Marathon's cost-basis theory as the proper measure of Mercuria's actual damages under the circumstances of the case.

Mem. Op. Oil & Gas Liquidated Damages NAESB Contract Rule 166(g) Penalty Clause Opinion PDF ↓
2025 Tex. Bus. 39 Summary Judgment October 14, 2025

Force Majeure Clauses Do Not Require Spot-Market Purchases or Buybacks Absent Express Language

In Marathon Oil v. Mercuria Energy America, the Texas Business Court held that contract language stating a seller has "no obligation to seek alternative Gas supplies" relieved Marathon of any duty to purchase spot-market gas or buy back delivery obligations during Winter Storm Uri. The decision enforces negotiated modifications to NAESB-form natural gas contracts according to their plain terms, without imposing implied mitigation duties under force majeure clauses.

Oil & Gas Contract Interpretation Force Majeure NAESB Contracts Winter Storm Uri Opinion PDF ↓
2025 Tex. Bus. 36 September 18, 2025

Battle of the Forms in Energy Contracts: Business Court Holds Dueling Transaction Confirmations Can Both Be Binding

In Marathon Oil v. Mercuria Energy America, the Business Court's 11th Division resolved whether dueling transaction confirmations in a NAESB-based natural gas purchase agreement both became part of the parties' integrated contract. The Court held that both confirmations are binding and combine with the base contract to form a single agreement because they do not materially conflict, rejecting the argument that one confirmation must trump the other.

Oil & Gas Contract Formation Battle of the Forms NAESB Transaction Confirmations Opinion PDF ↓