CONTRACT BETWEEN DRILLING RIG OPERATOR AND SEAMAN'S EMPLOYER WHICH INDEMNIFIES THE OPERATOR FOR ITS FAULT IS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER LOUISIANA LAW BUT IS ENFORCEABLE UNDER MARITIME LAW
GRANT ROSCOE VERSUS BRITISH-BORNEO USA, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-1238 SECTION "N"
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4141
March 4, 2002, Decided
March 5, 2002, Filed; March 6, 2002, Entered
DISPOSITION: British-Borneo U.S.A., Inc's Motion for Summary Judgment regarding third party demand DENIED. Atwood Oceanic, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding third party demand DENIED. Expro Americas, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the third-party claims against it DENIED.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employee sued defendant employer, a drilling operator, and the owner of a drilling rig under the Jones Act and the General Maritime Law, for injuries sustained while on the drilling floor of the drilling rig. The operator cross-claimed against the employer for indemnity. The owner and the operator moved for summary judgment against the employer. The employer moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the indemnity claims.
OVERVIEW: The employer and the operator entered into a contract which required that the employer provide the operator with a defense and indemnity for any claims brought by an employee of the employer for personal injuries. The court held that to the extent that the contract required indemnification for the operator's fault, it would be unenforceable under La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2780. However, the indemnification provisions of the contract would have been enforceable under maritime law, provided that indemnification for the operator's own negligence was clearly and unequivocally expressed. It was not disputed that the contract stated that the employer would fully defend, indemnify and hold the operator harmless, even where the accident was solely caused by the operator's own negligence, for any claims brought by the employer's employees arising from, or incidental to, the work performed under the contract. However, there were disputed issues of fact as to whether the contract was a maritime or non-maritime contract. Specifically, the contract work appeared to be more analogous to casing service and well completion, which activities had historically been characterized as maritime work.
OUTCOME: Each parties' motion for summary judgment was denied.
