Mobil Oil Corp. v. Schlumberger
Decision Date | 27 March 1992 |
Citation | 598 So.2d 1341 |
Parties | MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, et al. v. Anadrill SCHLUMBERGER. 1901359. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
W. Dewitt Reams of Reams, Philips, Killion, Brooks, Schell, Gaston and Hudson, P.C., Mobile, and Lucian Gillis, Jr. of Drew, Eckl & Farnham, Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.
J.P. Courtney III of Lyons, Pipes & Cook, Mobile, for appellee.
The plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Anadrill, Inc. (previously known as Anadrill Schlumberger).
The issues in this case concern indemnity provisions in two separate agreements between Anadrill and Mobil Oil Corporation ("MOC"), Mobil Oil Exploration and Producing Southeast, Inc. ("MOEPSI"), and Mobil Exploration and Producing Services United States, Inc. ("MEPSUS"). The three Mobil entities will collectively be referred to as "Mobil." Mobil's claim for indemnity arose from a personal injury that occurred at Mobil's dock in Theodore, Alabama.
Mobil ordered from Anadrill a drilling jar, to be used in offshore oil drilling. Acme Trucking Company was to deliver the drilling jar to the Mobil dock. The facts are in dispute as to whether Anadrill or Mobil contacted Acme to have it deliver the drilling jar. On January 16, 1989, Joseph Leboeuf, was delivering the drilling jar to the Mobil dock for Acme. Michael Patton, an employee of Riedel Environmental Services, Inc. ("Riedel"), was unloading the drilling jar from the Acme delivery truck when the drilling jar fell on Leboeuf. Leboeuf lost both of his legs and one of his arms as a result of the accident.
Leboeuf sued Mobil, Riedel, and Patton, alleging that negligence on their part had caused his injuries. Mobil cross-claimed against Riedel, based on an indemnity provision contained in a master service agreement between Reidel's predecessor in interest, Peterson Maritime Services, Inc., and MOEPSI.
Mobil filed a third-party complaint against Anadrill Schlumberger, later known as Anadrill, Inc. Mobil's third-party complaint was based on indemnity provisions in two separate agreements with Anadrill. In the complaint, Mobil requested indemnity for any sum paid to Leboeuf, plus interest, attorney fees, court costs, and other costs and expenses incurred by Mobil.
The first agreement was a master service agreement between Anadrill's predecessor, The Analysts, Inc., and MOC dated September 23, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "1971 agreement"). The 1971 agreement was adopted and ratified in April 1988 by a letter agreement between Anadrill and MEPSUS, as agent for MOEPSI. The second agreement was a master pricing agreement, subject to the terms and conditions of the "Anadrill Drilling Equipment Rentals Price Schedule," between Anadrill and MOEPSI dated August 19, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "1987 agreement"). The 1987 agreement included the prices for renting equipment, and that agreement was updated December 20, 1988.
The trial court severed Mobil's contractual indemnity claims against Riedel and Anadrill from Leboeuf's tort claims. Leboeuf entered into a pro tanto settlement with Mobil and was paid $2,500,000 pursuant to that settlement.
Following the settlement with Leboeuf, Mobil's indemnity claim against Riedel proceeded to trial. At trial, Mobil was awarded $2,752,045.15, based on the indemnity provisions in the master service agreement with Riedel. The award included the principal amount paid to Leboeuf, attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses.
The trial court granted Anadrill's motion for a summary judgment, which had been filed in response to Mobil's third-party complaint against Anadrill. Mobil claims that the gross amount owed by Anadrill is $2,803,953.39 and says that Anadrill will be credited with the gross payment made by Riedel, minus post-judgment interest. Mobil appeals from the summary judgment in favor of Anadrill.
The 1971 agreement between Anadrill and MOC provides in pertinent part as follows:
The 1987 agreement between Anadrill and MEPSUS provides in pertinent part as follows:
The 1987 agreement included the prices for renting drilling equipment and included discounts applicable to certain equipment. Also, the Anadrill equipment rental price schedule included the following rental terms and conditions:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lenihan v. Boeing Co.
...Alabama Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. National Union Life Ins. Co., 275 Ala. 28, 151 So.2d 762, 766 (1963); see also Mobil Oil Corp. v. Schlumberger, 598 So.2d 1341, 1345 (Ala.1992); Muscle Shoals Aviation, Inc. v. Muscle Shoals Airport Auth., 508 So.2d 225, 228 (Ala.1987); Alexander v. Petroleum ......
-
Tang v. Vaxin, Inc.
...of contract law is that if a written contract exists, the parties' rights are controlled by that contract. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Schlumberger, 598 So. 2d 1341, 1345-1346 (Ala. 1992). The intent of the contracting parties is discerned from the whole of the contract. Homes of Legend, Inc. v. McC......
-
Simmons v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.
...sale. [¶10] Master service agreements typically provide a framework for future work under subsequent contracts. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Schlumberger , 598 So.2d 1341, 1345 (Ala. 1992). The terms of a master service agreement are generally incorporated into the subsequent contracts. Id. Some mast......
-
Hurst v. Cook
...to meet the requirements of the exception to the principle that agreements to agree are unenforceable. See Mobil Oil Corp. v. Schlumberger, 598 So.2d 1341, 1345 (Ala. 1992). However, in a case with marked similarity to this case, our supreme court determined that an action for breach of con......