SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED AND REMANDED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT CLEAR THAT THE CHARTER AGREEMENT EXPRESSED IN CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL TERMS THAT THE BOAT OWNER AND BOAT COMPANY WERE ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FOR UNSEAWORTHINESS CLAIMS SINCE A STATEMENT TO T
JAMES TYE POOLE VERSUS ELEVATING BOATS, L.L.C.
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT
2007 La. App. LEXIS 730
April 4, 2007, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:Appellant broker challenged the judgment of the 25th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana, granting the summary judgment motion filed by appellee boat owner and ordering the broker to indemnify and defend the boat owner and third party plaintiff boat company.
OVERVIEW: The action arose out of a personal injury sustained by the claimant while he was aboard the boat. The claimant sustained injuries when he fell from an unsecured wood platform located in the vessel's lavatory. At the time, the claimant was employed by the employer. The employer had used the broker to procure the boat for an offshore construction job. The claimant filed suit against the owner and the boat company. The owner filed a third-party demand against the broker. The appellate court ruled that the district court did not err in determining that the previously executed brokerage agreement was not applicable to the instant dispute, as the terms of the brokerage agreement were nullified by the terms of the charter. The charter agreement solely identified the broker as the charterer and there was an absence of language identifying any other party as having the obligation of indemnifying the owner. Also, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the owner and boat company were entitled to defense and indemnification for the claimant's claim of unseaworthiness.
OUTCOME: The judgment was reversed and remanded.
