LLC v. Enerflex Energy Systems, Inc., Appellee-Defendant (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC and Columbia Pipeline Group Services Company (collectively, “Columbia”) sued Enerflex Energy Systems, Inc. (“Enerflex”) for indemnification, alleging Columbia had to reimburse its customers for harms they suffered because of Enerflex's deficient installation of compressors at one of Columbia's natural gas compressor stations. Following a seven-day bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Enerflex. Columbia now appeals and raises one issue for our review: Whether the trial court clearly erred by entering judgment in favor of Enerflex.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Enerflex and Columbia are Delaware corporations with their principal places of business in Houston, Texas. Columbia's predecessor in interest was headquartered in Merrillville, Indiana.

[4] Columbia owns and operates a natural gas compressor station (the “Compressor Station”) in Downingtown, Pennsylvania. The Compressor Station receives gas from a pumping station to the south and sends it north to a distribution center at Rock Springs, Pennsylvania. The Compressor Station consists of “four reciprocating compressors each of which has a suction bottle, a discharge bottle, a discharge cooler and a vane pack separator, all connected by pipe.” Appellants’ App. Vol. II at 39. Since 2003, the Compressor Station used four “Dresser Rand compressors.” Id. at 40.

[5] In 2013, Enerflex and Columbia's predecessor in interest executed a General Services Agreement (the “Agreement”), by which Enerflex agreed to install four “Ariel Compressors” to replace the four Dresser Rand compressors. Appellants’ App. Vol. II at 40. Enerflex was responsible for providing the compressors and the compressors’ suction and discharge bottles; supervising “the assembly and internal piping to connect the compressors and bottles”; and “pre-testing, commissioning[,] and start-up of the compressors.” Id. Columbia “was responsible for the design, overall project management, the electric motors, electrical wiring, all piping outside of the connections required inside the station, and the discharge coolers and filtration.” Id. The Agreement also required the parties to litigate any dispute in Indiana.

[6] On August 18, 2015, “installation and start-up of” the first two Ariel Compressors (“Unit 1”) was completed. Appellants’ App. Vol. II at 40. On September 8, one of Columbia's “downstream customer[s] ․ at R[o]ck Springs reported the gas it received from Unit 1 was contaminated by oil,” which caused the customer's “turbines to immediately shut down.” Id. On September 22, “installation and start-up of” the last two Ariel Compressors (“Unit 2”) was completed. Id. Later that same day, “a debris incident occurred that damaged Columbia's equipment.” Id. “[T]he flow of gas to Columbia's customers downstream from [the Compressor Station] was interrupted.” Id. Columbia “had to reimburse those customers for damages they incurred as a result of the fouling of the gas and the flow interruption.” Id. at 40–41. After these incidents, Columbia took corrective action, including “cleaning and reassembling” the “PECO 95 V Vane Pack Separators,” id. at 41, which separate contaminants out of the gas and were not components of Units 1 and 2. Metal debris was found in these separators.

[7] “On October 13, 2016[,] Columbia was notified, once again, that oil was present in the natural gas being delivered to the turbines at Rock Springs.” Appellants’ App. Vol. II at 41. After this incident, Columbia “dismantled the PECO 95 V Vane Pack Separators and discovered that they were clogged with debris”; Columbia replaced those separators with a different model. Id.

[8] Columbia sued Enerflex for, among other things, indemnification relating to Columbia's reimbursement of its customers’ losses. According to Columbia, Enerflex failed to clean welding debris from Units 1 and 2 prior to their installation, and this debris caused the PECO 95 V Vane Pack Separators to clog and the gas to be fouled. Columbia asserted Enerflex was required to indemnify Columbia for the amounts it had paid its downstream customers pursuant to Section 4(a) (the “Indemnification Provision”) of the Agreement. That section provides in relevant part as follows:

4. INDEMNIFICATION

(a) To the fullest extent permitted by law, [Enerflex] waives any right of contribution and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless [Columbia] and its parent company, agents, affiliates and employees (collectively, “Indemnitees”) from and against all claims, damages, losses, fines, penalties and expenses, including attorneys’ fees related in any way to (i) any breach of this Agreement by [Enerflex]; or (ii) [Enerflex]’s or its Subcontractors’ or agents performance of the Work (collectively, “Claims”), provided that any such Claims in subsection (a)(ii) above are caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of [Enerflex], any Subcontractor or any of its respective direct or indirect employees or agents for whose acts any of them may be liable.

Ex. Vol. I at 95 (emphases added).

[9] After a seven-day bench trial involving numerous experts, the trial court determined Columbia had not met its burden of proving that Enerflex had caused any of the aforementioned incidents, so it entered judgment in favor of Enerflex. In support of this ruling, the trial court entered the following relevant Indiana Trial Rule 52(A) findings and conclusions:

Columbia has the burden of proving that Enerflex's failure to clean welding debris ․ from the pulsation bottles prior to their installation, caused the malfunction of the PECO 95 V Vane Pack Separators which led to the fouling of the gas flowing out of [the Compressor Station]. The burden of proof in a civil case such as this is by a preponderance of the evidence ․

Appellants’ App. Vol. II at 42.

The evidence presented by Columbia consisting of the analysis of the debris found in the PECO 95 V Vane Pack Separators and the chain of events surrounding the discovery, testing and analysis of the debris, is not enough to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that faulty welding was the cause of the resulting misfortunes. Persuasive evidence was presented that the debris that caused the failure of the PECO 95V Vane Pack Separators consisted of far more debris that could not have been derived from solely from welding, particularly when evidence was presented that the pulsation bottles were all thoroughly physically inspected at the time of their manufacture and determined to be free of any debris, including welding debris. Evidence was also presented that debris accumulated in the PECO V Vane Pack Separators and in the gas pipelines as a result of the lack of regular inspections and cleaning of the PECO 95 V Vane Pack Separators and regular [cleaning] of the connecting gas pipelines by Columbia.

In addition, persuasive evidence was presented that the PECO 95 V Vane Pack Separators in use that performed adequately with the Dresser Rand Compressors were not the appropriate equipment for and performed badly with the increased lubrication rate of the Ariel Compressors. The October 2016 event demonstrated at the very least a likelihood that the PECO 95 V Vane Pack Separators in use by Columbia were inappropriate for their application at [the Compressor Station].

Perhaps the most significant evidence presented was that Columbia installed [the new model of separators and they] effectively ended for Columbia the fouling of gas to its downstream customers ․

A great deal of the evidence presented by both Columbia and Enerflex was very persuasive expert opinion, nearly all of which was disputed equally persuasively by the other's experts․ [T]he burden rested squarely upon Columbia to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that welding debris, negligently left in the pulsation bottles at the time of their manufacture by Enerflex's vessel manufacturer, caused the fouling of the gas with oil which resulted in damages to Columbia's downstream customers for which it was liable. Columbia has not met that burden.

Id. at 43–44. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The Trial Court Did Not Err by Entering Judgment in Favor of Enerflex

[10] Columbia argues the trial court erred by entering judgment in favor of Enerflex. The trial court here entered findings and conclusions pursuant to Trial Rule 52(A), so we review for clear error. Norris v. Norris, 275 N.E.3d 505, 509 (Ind. 2026) (citing Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 123 (Ind. 2016)). “In conducting this review, we determine whether the evidence supports the court's findings and whether those findings support the court's judgment.” Id. (citing Steele-Giri, 51 N.E.3d at 123). A decision is clearly erroneous “only if the findings lack factual support in the record or if the judgment applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts.” Id. (citing Wysocki v. Johnson, 18 N.E.3d 600, 603–04 (Ind. 2014)). We will not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility, id. (citing Steele-Giri, 51 N.E.3d at 123), and we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that support the trial court's decision, In re Ma.H., 134 N.E.3d 41, 45 (Ind. 2019) (citing In re K.E., 39 N.E.3d 641, 646 (Ind. 2015)). For issues not covered by the findings, we apply our general judgment standard, meaning we “should affirm based on any legal theory supported by the evidence.” State ex rel. Dep't Nat. Res. v. Leonard, 226 N.E.3d 198, 202 (Ind. 2024) (citing Steele-Giri, 51 N.E.3d at 123–24; Ind. Trial Rule 52(D)).

[11] Columbia specifically contends the trial court erred by not expressly using the causation language found in the Indemnification Provision.¹ That provision requires Enerflex to indemnify Columbia from third-party losses that are (1) “related in any way” to Enerflex's “performance of the Work” and (2) “caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission” of Enerflex. Ex. Vol. I at 95.

[12] The trial court explicitly credited evidence demonstrating that the “pulsation bottles” in Units 1 and 2 were “free of any debris, including welding debris,” prior to their installation at the Compressor Station. Appellants’ App. Vol. II at 43. The trial court also credited evidence demonstrating that Columbia's failure to regularly clean and inspect the PECO V Vane Pack Separators and gas pipelines resulted in debris accumulation therein and that those separators “were not the appropriate equipment for and performed badly with” Units 1 and 2. Id. Based on this and other evidence the trial court deemed “persuasive,” it concluded that Columbia failed to prove that its customers’ losses were caused by Enerflex. Id. at 44. It is of no moment that the trial court chose not to include in its order the exact phrasing from the Indemnification Provision—“related in any way” and “caused in whole or in part,” Ex. Vol. I at 95. The trial court clearly determined that Enerflex was not a cause, either in whole or in part, of Columbia's third-party losses. Columbia's arguments to the contrary are merely requests for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we will not do. See Norris, 275 N.E.3d at 509 (citing Steele-Giri, 51 N.E.3d at 123).

[13] Based on the foregoing, we cannot say the trial court erred by entering judgment in favor of Enerflex. We affirm that judgment.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Enerflex argues that Columbia waived this argument by failing to present it before the trial court entered judgment in Enerflex's favor, instead raising it first in a motion to correct error and now on appeal. It is not clear from the record that Columbia waived its argument, and even if it had, we prefer to decide cases on their merits rather than on procedural grounds like waiver, Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Roberts v. Cmty. Hosps. of Ind., Inc., 897 N.E.2d 458, 469 (Ind. 2008)).

Felix, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Bradford, J., concur.