Sonat Exploration Co vs. Falcon Drilling Co, (5th Cir. 2001)
Linked as:
Text
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
m 00-30195 S ONAT E XPLORATION C OMPANY , I NC ., Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS F ALCON D RILLING C OMPANY , I NC ., ET AL ., Defendants, F ALCON D RILLING C OMPANY , I NC .; I NDEMNITY M ARINE A SSURANCE C OMPANY , L TD ., A LSO K NOWN AS CGL U NDERWRITERS ; S TEAMSHIP M UTUAL U NDERWRITING A SSOCIATION (B ERMUDA ), L TD ., A LSO K NOWN AS P&I U NDERWRITERS ; FDI M ARINE , I NC ., A LSO K NOWN AS F ALCON D RILLING , I NC .; F ALCON S ERVICES C OMPANY , I NC ., OF D ELAWARE , D OING B USINESS AS F ALCON D RILLING C OMPANY ; Y ORKSHIRE I NSURANCE C OMPANY , L TD ., A LSO K NOWN AS CGL U NDERWRITERS ; P HOENIX A SSURANCE P UBLIC L IMITED C OMPANY , A LSO K NOWN AS CGL U NDERWRITERS ; N ORTHERN A SSURANCE C OMPANY , L TD ., A LSO K NOWN AS CGL U NDERWRITERS ; O CEAN M ARINE I NSURANCE C OMPANY , L TD ., A LSO K NOWN AS CGL U NDERWRITERS ; S KANDIA M ARINE I NSURANCE C OMPANY (U NITED K INGDOM ), L TD ., A LSO K NOWN AS CGL U NDERWRITERS ; C OMMERCIAL U NION A SSURANCE C OMPANY , P UBLIC L IABILITY C OMPANY , A LSO K NOWN AS CGL U NDERWRITERS ; T HREADNEEDLE I NSURANCE C OMPANY , L TD ., A LSO K NOWN AS CGL U NDERWRITERS ; T ERRA N OVA I NSURANCE C OMPANY , L TD ., A LSO K NOWN AS CGL U NDERWRITERS , Defendants-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (98-CV-2187) December 29, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This dispute regards the interpretation of various contractual provisions on crossindemnifications and insurance re sponsibilit ies. The pa rt ies disagree as to which of them is contractually obligated to pay for injury to an employee of a third-party contractor incurred while performing work within the scope of the contract. Sonat Exploration Company, Inc. (“Sonat”), an d Falcon Drilling Company, Inc. (“Falcon”), entered an offsh o re drilling contract under which Falcon furnished Sonat with the FalRig82, a jack-up drilling vessel used to drill oil wells in naviga ble waters.
Under the contract, Sonat and Falcon crossindemnified each other, and Falcon was further responsible for obtaining insurance for all claims and contractual indemnities covered by the contract.
When an employee of a thi rd-party contractor was injured on the FalRig82, Sonat sued, seeking declaratory judgment that it is not required to indemnify Falcon in this sit uat ion and that Sonat is an additional insured for all purposes under the general liabilit y insurance that Falcon is contractually required to purchase. We have reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law and ha ve heard and consid ered oral arguments of counsel. We conclude that the distri c t court properly e nt ered summary judgment for Sonat on the basis that SonatÂ’s was the only reasonable interpretati on of the contract. The court decided that the contract requires Falcon to maintain insuranc e for all the indemnities covered by the contract, inclu d ing those indemnities that Sonat owes F alcon, and that * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not be published and is not precedent exce pt under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. the contract requires that Sonat be an ad ditional insured on the general commercial liabilit y insuran ce purchased by Falcon. We therefore affirm, essentially for the reasons set forth by the district court in its comprehensive opinion of September 23, 1999, and in it s ruling denying FalconÂ’s motion for new trial of January 26, 2000.
AFFIRMED.
Sponsored links
