Foreman v. Exxon Corporation

770 F.2d 490 (5th Cir. 1985)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P, an employee of Offshore (D), brought this action against Exxon (D) and Diamond M (D) for personal injuries he sustained while working on a fixed platform owned by Exxon (D) and the drilling rig that was located atop the platform was owned by Diamond M (D). Exxon (D) had contracted with both Diamond M (D) and Offshore (D) to perform services. The contract with Diamond M (D) was to perform drilling services. The contract with Offshore (D) was for the installation of well casing pipe. Diamond M (D) filed a cross-claim against Exxon (D) for indemnity and/or contribution relative to any sums for which Diamond M (D) might be liable to P. Exxon (D) also filed a similar cross-claim against Diamond M (D). Exxon (D) filed a third-party complaint against Offshore (D) seeking indemnity for (a) any sums for which Exxon (D) might be liable directly to P for its negligence and (b) any sums for which it was required to indemnify Diamond M (D) (the third-party complaint). The jury found that all were negligent and that each contributed to the accident which caused Foreman's injuries in the following degrees: Exxon (D) -- 10%; Diamond M (D) -- 55%; and Offshore (D) -- 35%. The parties agreed that P would receive $323,000 in a settlement fund and that Northwestern would be paid $23,000 from this fund. They further agreed that the district court would decide the contractual indemnity issues that were the basis of the cross-claims and of the third-party complaint. The district court then issued its reasons for judgment setting forth its decision on the contractual issues. The court noted that the jury had found the parties at fault in the proportionate degrees above set out and proceeded to review various indemnity provisions of the Exxon-Diamond M contract and the Exxon-Offshore contract. The court concluded that Offshore (D) was obligated to contribute 45% of the settlement fund: this contribution represents 35% attributable to Offshore's (D) fault and 10% attributable to Exxon's (D) fault for which Offshore (D) contractually agreed to indemnify Exxon (D). In addition, the court concluded that Exxon (D) was obligated to contribute the remaining 55% of the settlement fund: this contribution represents the percentage of fault attributable to Diamond M (D) for which Exxon (D) contractually agreed to indemnify Diamond M (D). The court did not allow Exxon (D) indemnity from Offshore (D) for this 55% contribution that Exxon (D) was assessed. It held that Offshore (D) had agreed only to indemnify Exxon (D) for direct liability and that Offshore (D) had not agreed to assume Exxon's (D) contractual liability to Diamond M (D) pursuant to the Exxon-Diamond M contract. Offshore (D) claiming that the 35% of fault assigned to it should have been apportioned between Exxon (D) and Diamond M (D) and that it should not have been required to indemnify Exxon (D) for Exxon's (D) direct liability under the contractual indemnity terms of the Exxon-Offshore contract. Offshore (D) claiming that the 35% of fault assigned to it should have been apportioned between Exxon (D) and Diamond M (D) and that it should not have been required to indemnify Exxon (D) for Exxon's (D) direct liability under the contractual indemnity terms of the Exxon-Offshore contract. Exxon (D) filed a cross-appeal arguing that Offshore (D) should have been required to indemnify it for amounts it owes Diamond M (D) under the contractual indemnity terms of the Exxon-Diamond M contract.