Veolia Water Technologies, Inc. v. Antero Treatment LLC, Antero Resources Corporation, Antero Midstream Partners LP…

Summary

The court held that the economic loss rule does not bar Antero’s fraudulent-inducement claim because the parties’ agreements were separate, stand-alone transactions and Veolia’s material nondisclosures occurred before and induced execution of the governing agreement. The court also explained that the claim would not be barred even under a post-contract theory because the relevant contractual requirements were nondiscretionary and did not subsume an independent tort duty against fraud. The judgment was affirmed on different grounds, and the case was remanded for determination of reasonable attorney fees under the contract’s fee-shifting provision.