Conoco v. Medic Systems

• Decision Date: 19 July 2001
• Docket Number: No. 00-31166,00-31166
• Citation: 259 F.3d 369
• Parties: (5th Cir. 2001) CONOCO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. MEDIC SYSTEMS, INC., GRASSO CORPORATION, GRASSO PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC., PPI - SEAHAWK SERVICES, INC., AND OFFSHORE LOGISTICS, INC. Defendants-Appellees
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 369

259 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 2001)

CONOCO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. MEDIC SYSTEMS, INC., GRASSO CORPORATION, GRASSO PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC., PPI - SEAHAWK SERVICES, INC., AND OFFSHORE LOGISTICS, INC. Defendants-Appellees

No. 00-31166

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

July 19, 2001

Donald W. Washington (argued), George Andrew Veazey, Karen Daniel Ancelet, Jeansonne & Remondet, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert Michael Kallam (argued), Bryan Edward Lefe, Preis, Kraft & Roy, Lafayette, LA, for Grasso Production Management, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Louisiana

Before HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges, and DUPLANTIER,^* District Judge

PER CURIAM:

Conoco, Inc. (Conoco) appeals the dismissal of its claim for contractual indemnity for attorney fees and costs incurred in the defense of a lawsuit brought against it on behalf of an employee of Medic Systems, Inc. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the district judge's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment, grant Conoco's motion for summary judgment, and remand for further proceedings.

Lonna Herronen, an employee of Medic Systems, Inc., worked as a paramedic on an oil production platform operated by Conoco and located on the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of Louisiana. She was required to be available to attend to medical problems aboard the platform on a 24 hour basis. While aboard the platform, she was assaulted, battered, or raped by one or more unidentified assailants. Many months later she died of injuries sustained in an automobile accident.

After her death, Lonna Herronen's mother, Ricky L. Hetchler, filed suit individually and as executrix of the estate of her daughter against Conoco, seeking to recover damages for injuries sustained by Lonna Herronen in the attack which occurred upon Conoco's platform. The suit asserted theories of negligence, strict liability, and vicarious liability. The case proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of Hetchler's case-in-chief, the district judge granted partial judgment as a matter of law (Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(c)), in favor of Conoco, dismissing the strict liability and vicarious liability claims. The negligence claim was submitted to the jury, which concluded that Lonna Herronen had been "assaulted, battered or raped" while working on the platform operated by Conoco; but the jury answered "No" to an interrogatory asking whether "the assault, battery or rape of Lonna Herronen [was] legally caused by negligence on the part of Conoco."

On plaintiff Hetchler's appeal from the adverse jury verdict, this court affirmed the judgment, concluding that "the jury finding of no liability herein on the part of Conoco is adequately supported by the record. . .." Hetchler v. Conoco, Inc., 97-31281 ( 5th Cir. January 8, 1999).

Thereafter Conoco filed suit against Medic Systems, Inc., Grasso Production Management, Inc., and PPI-Seahawk Services¹ seeking contractual indemnification for attorney fees and costs incurred in the defense of the Hetchler lawsuit, under the master contract between Conoco and PPI-Seahawk Services governing the services performed by Medic Systems, Inc., Lonna Herronen's employer, on the platform operated by Conoco. Conoco and defendants filed cross motions for summary judgment. The district judge denied Conoco's motion for summary judgment, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment dismissing the suit with prejudice. The district judge concluded that the attack on Herronen was a random act of violence that did not "arise from" her employment and was therefore outside the scope of the indemnity agreement.

We review the district judge's grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, and in doing so we apply the same standards applicable in the district court. Roberts v. Energy Development Corporation, 235 F.3d 935, 938 (5th Cir. 2000). Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the entry of summary judgment when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). There is no dispute that the case is ripe for summary judgment. The only issue is one of law: whether the indemnity provision of the contract covers the suit involving the attack upon Lonna Herronen.

Conoco and PPI Seahawk Services entered into a blanket contract in which PPI-Seahawk Services agreed to provide certain services to Conoco offshore platforms, including medical services by Medic Systems, Inc., Herronen's employer. The contract between Conoco and PPI-Seahawk Services, Inc. provides in pertinent part:

Contractor [PPI-Seahawk Services] agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Company [Conoco] . . . against any and all claims, demands, or suits (including, but not limited to, claims, demands, or suits, for bodily injury, illness, disease, death, or loss of services or wages) which may be brought...