Hobbs v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc.

Citation632 F.2d 1238
Decision Date17 December 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-3956,79-3956
PartiesWilliam Henry HOBBS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TELEDYNE MOVIBLE OFFSHORE, INC. and Argonaut Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants-Cross Appellees, v. CHEVRON OIL CO., INC., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellee, v. COASTAL MARINE et al., Third Party Defendants-Appellees, v. OIL WELL DRILLING CONTROL, INC., Third Party Defendant-Appellee-Cross Appellant. Summary Calendar. . Unit A
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Christopher B. Siegrist, Joseph J. Weigand, Jr., Houma, La., for defendants-appellants-cross appellees.

David S. Cook, Lafayette, La., for Oil Well Drilling Control, Inc.

Lloyd C. Melancon, New Orleans, La., for Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

Terriberry, Carroll, Yancey & Farrell, John A. Bolles, New Orleans, La., for Coastal Marine, Inc. & Proprietors Ins.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Before BROWN, POLITZ and TATE, Circuit Judges.

POLITZ, Circuit Judge:

Before the court are indemnity claims arising out of a personal injury suit.

Henry Hobbs was injured in an offshore accident while working for Oil Well Drilling Control, Inc., an independent contractor, on a rig owned by Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., which was on a platform owned by Chevron Oil Co., Inc. The accident occurred as Hobbs was being transferred by a Teledyne crane from the rig to a crew boat owned by Coastal Marine.

Hobbs sued Teledyne, its insurer, Chevron and Coastal. Chevron filed third party claims against Oil Well, Coastal and Teledyne for contractual indemnification, but pursued its claims only against Oil Well.

A jury trial on Hobbs's complaint resulted in a verdict for Hobbs against Teledyne. Coastal and Chevron were found free of negligence. The district court subsequently granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of Chevron against Oil Well for expenses of defense, allowing the parties an opportunity to reach an agreement as to amount, if they could, within a stated period. This effort was unsuccessful. Oil Well then filed a cross-complaint against Teledyne and Coastal for reimbursement of defense costs owed to Chevron. The district court granted summary judgment: (1) for Chevron against Oil Well for $5,631.82, (2) for Oil Well against Teledyne for $2,815.91, and (3) for Coastal rejecting Oil Well's claims. Oil Well and Teledyne appeal.

On appeal, Oil Well contends that Chevron is not entitled to indemnity and, alternatively, if Chevron is so entitled, then Teledyne and Coastal should be cast in solido with it.

On appeal, Teledyne challenges the timeliness of Oil Well's cross claim; the propriety of granting a motion for summary judgment without a hearing and absent stipulated facts; the applicability of the indemnity agreement in personal injury cases; the inclusion of defense costs within the ambit of the indemnity agreement; and the finding that Teledyne was solidarily liable with Oil Well.

Timeliness of Oil Well's Claims

The district court allowed Chevron to file a motion for summary judgment, granted the motion, but deferred the question of amount to allow the parties an opportunity to reach an agreement. The judgment was only partial, the court reserving jurisdiction over the unresolved issues. "An order of a district court granting partial summary judgment which leaves claims to be adjudicated may constitute a final order 'only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express determination for the entry of judgment'." Eudy v. Motor Guide, Herschede Hall Clock Co., 604 F.2d 17, 18 (5th Cir. 1979), Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), Gonzales v. Texas Employment Commission, 563 F.2d 776, 777 (5th Cir. 1977). There was no rule 54(b) certification rendering the judgment final in the instant case. Oil Well's cross claims, filed three months after the partial summary judgment, were filed while the matter was still within the jurisdiction of the district court. The motion was timely filed. The contention of Teledyne that Oil Well was not a party to the action is devoid of merit. Oil Well was brought in as a third party defendant. Its attorney was present throughout the trial of the main demand.

The Motions For Summary Judgment

The court's rulings on the motions for summary judgment were based on the facts adduced at trial, the findings of the jury and the contracts that existed between the parties. Chevron and Coastal were exonerated of negligence by the jury. The contracts between the parties are clear and unambiguous. There is no dispute over the existence or content of the contracts, only their meaning. A summary judgment may be granted when there is no genuine issue as to material fact. The moving party must show that "there is not the slightest doubt as to the facts and that only the legal conclusion remains to be resolved." Insurance Co. of No. Amer. v. Bosworth Construction Co., 469 F.2d 1266 (5th Cir. 1972); Clark v. West Chemical Products, Inc., 557 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1977). No facts were in dispute. The only question is a legal question. Summary judgment is appropriate.

The Indemnity Agreement

Oil Well contends it is not responsible for indemnification to Chevron; Teledyne contends the agreement does not extend to personal injury losses. The district court rejected these contentions and allowed recovery for defense expenses, including attorney's fees.

The contract between Oil Well and Chevron contains the following language of indemnity:

Contractor (Oil Well) agrees to defend and hold Company (Chevron) indemnified and harmless from and against any loss, expense, claim or demand for:

(a) injury to or death of Contractor's employees ... in any way arising out of or connected with the performance by Contractor of services hereunder...

Company shall have the right, at its option, to participate in the defense of any such suit without relieving Contractor of any obligation hereunder.

This provision is identical to the one presented to us in Stephens v. Chevron Oil Co., 517 F.2d 1123 (5th Cir. 1975), in which, after resorting to Louisiana law for aid in interpretation, we held that "the indemnitee is entitled to recover from the indemnitor the costs and expenses incurred in successfully defending the personal injury suit." 517 F.2d at 1124.

In support of its argument, Teledyne refers to one section of its contract with Chevron covering liabilities and claims that arise from violations of "applicable Federal and State laws and regulations." This argument overlooks the section referring to personal injury relied upon by the district judge:

Contractor alone shall be responsible for and shall indemnify and hold Company harmless from and against any damages and claims for ... injury to, impairment of health of, or death of third parties or of employees of Contractor, operator or third parties, arising from Contractor's performance of its obligations under this agreement.

The district court correctly found that both Teledyne and Oil Well were obligated to indemnify Chevron. The court likewise correctly found that Coastal was not obligated to Oil Well. The contract between Chevron and Coastal provides:

Owner hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Chevron Oil Co. against ... all claims for damages whether...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Sterling v. Johns Hopkins Hospital
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Julio 2002
    ...material fact presented, summary judgment is appropriate to resolve purely legal questions. See, e.g., Hobbs v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 632 F.2d 1238, 1240 (5th Cir. Unit A 1980). We exercise plenary review over the circuit court's decision to grant summary judgment. See generally ......
  • Junker v. Crory
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 17 Julio 1981
    ...Dawson, Lawyers and Involuntary Clients in Public Interest Litigation, 88 Harv.L.Rev. 849, 859 (1975).18 Hobbs v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 632 F.2d 1238, 1241 (5th Cir. 1980); Ogea v. Loffland Brothers Co., 622 F.2d 186, 190 (5th Cir. 1980); Nassau Realty Co. v. Brown, 332 So.2d 206......
  • Fontenot v. Mesa Petroleum Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 13 Junio 1986
    ...all activities reasonably incident or anticipated by the principal activity of the contract. 6 We held in Hobbs v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 632 F.2d 1238, 1241 (5th Cir.1980), that an injury sustained by a contractor's employee while being transported by a crane from an offshore dri......
  • Dixon v. International Harvester Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 7 Marzo 1985
    ... ... v. North Central Airlines, Inc., 471 F.2d 357, 358 (8th Cir.1973). Chris' testimony ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT