Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Cat Tech, L.L.C.
Decision Date | 09 June 2010 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. H-08-3692 |
Citation | 717 F.Supp.2d 672 |
Parties | AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CAT TECH, L.L.C., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Ellen Lewis Van Meir, Mariah Baker Quiroz, Thompson Coe et al., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs.
James L. Cornell, Jr., Cornell & Pardue, Houston, TX, for Defendants.
This is an insurance coverage dispute between Cat Tech, LLC and its commercial general liability and umbrella insurers, American Home Assurance Company and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA. The dispute is over the insurers' duty to indemnify Cat Tech for an arbitration award in favor of its client, Ergon Refining, Inc., arising from catalyst change-out services Cat Tech provided on a reactor at Ergon's refinery. The arbitrators found Cat Tech responsible for damage to the reactor that Cat Tech worked on twice, in January and in February 2005. American Home paid Cat Tech $1 million, the per occurrence policy limit, subject to a reservation of rights. In this suit, the insurers seek a declaratory judgment that they have no duty to indemnify Cat Tech for the over $1.9 million in damages awarded Ergon in the arbitration. Cat Tech has counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that it is entitled to indemnity for the total arbitration award.
The following motions are pending:
Based on the motions, responses, and replies; the record; the pleadings; and the applicable law, this court rules as follows:
By June 25, 2010, the parties must submit a statement identifying any issues that remain to be decided and proposing a scheduling order for resolving them or proposing an order of final judgment.
The reasons for these rulings are explained below.
Ergon Refining, Inc. hired Cat Tech to service a reactor at Ergon's Vicksburg, Mississippi refinery. On October 8, 2004, Cat Tech and Ergon entered into a Master Service Contract. In January 2005, during a planned turn-around, Cat Tech performed catalyst change-out service work on the "D-651 hydrotreating reactor" at the Ergon refinery. (Docket Entry No. 57, Ex. 1 at 1). The work on the reactor led to Ergon's claim for breach of contract and negligence against Cat Tech. The arbitrators heard six days of evidence and arguments. In a "reasoned" award, the arbitrators found that Ergon was entitled to recover $1,973,180.00 for direct damages, interest, and attorney's fees and litigation expenses from Cat Tech. The arbitrators found that the contract precluded consequential damages. (Docket Entry No. 57, Ex. 1 at 1).
In the award, the arbitrators found that "Cat Tech's scope of work ... consisted of unloading all catalyst from Beds 1 through 4, removal of existing reactor internals, installation of new reactor internals, and the loading of new catalyst in each of the Beds." (Docket Entry No. 57, Ex. 1 at 2). The arbitrators entered the following findings:
( Id. at 2-3). The arbitrators awarded $750,000 in damages for "event 1" and $1 million in damages for "event 2." ( Id., Ex. 1 at 5).
Dr. Christopher Buehler, a chemical engineer retained by the plaintiffs as an expert witness in this coverage dispute, described the part of the reactor that Cat Tech was working on.2 The reactor contained four "beds," with Bed 1 on the top and Bed 4 on the bottom. Each bed was loaded with catalyst. On top of the catalyst in each bed was a distribution tray and a quench assembly. Below Bed 4 was the reactor vessel and "support grid." (Docket Entry No. 59, Ex. 1 at 4). Cat Tech removed the distribution trays and quench assemblies and unloaded the catalyst. As this work proceeded, the support grid was exposed and was inspected. The outlet screen at the bottom of the reactor vessel was removed and replaced, followed by the replacement of the "support spheres." Next, Cat Tech began loading new catalyst into the beds. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kipp Flores Architects, LLC v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.
...is inadmissible, and his statements have not been considered. See Askanase, 130 F.3d at 673; Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech, LLC, 717 F. Supp. 2d 672, 681-82 (S.D. Tex. 2010), rev'd on other grounds, 660 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2011); Canatxx Gas Storage Ltd. v. Silverhawk Capital Partners, ......
-
America Can! v. Arch Insurance Company
...to enable the jury to evaluate how Defendants’ conduct measured up against such standards. See Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Cat Tech, L.L.C. , 717 F. Supp. 2d 672, 682 (S.D. Tex. 2010), rev'd on other grounds by 660 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2011) ("To the extent that Martin's testimony explains bears o......
-
Express Packaging of OH, Inc. v. American States Ins. Co.
...the intent of the policy the better approach to the interpretation of “handled” was well expressed in American Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech, L.L. C., 717 F.Supp.2d 672 (S.D.Texas, 2010), which adopted the Webster's Dictionary definition of “to buy and sell; to deal, or trade in” as more a......
-
Target Strike Inc v. Marston & Marston Inc
...and signed by the expert, stating all opinions the expert will express and the basis and reasons for the opinions). 14.Docket entry # 194. 15.Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Cat Tech, 717 F. Supp. 2d 672, 681 (S.D. Tex. 2010). 16.Mathis v. Exxon, 302 F.3d 448, 459-60 (5th Cir. 2002); Moore v. Ashlan......