Sonat Exploration Co v. Falcon Drilling Co, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
m 00-30195
_______________
SONAT EXPLORATION COMPANY, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
FALCON DRILLING COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants,
FALCON DRILLING COMPANY, INC.;
INDEMNITY MARINE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS;
STEAMSHIP MUTUAL UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION (BERMUDA), LTD.,
ALSO KNOWN AS P&I UNDERWRITERS;
FDI MARINE, INC.,
ALSO KNOWN AS FALCON DRILLING, INC.;
FALCON SERVICES COMPANY, INC., OF DELAWARE,
DOING BUSINESS AS FALCON DRILLING COMPANY;
YORKSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS;
PHOENIX ASSURANCE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY,
ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS;
NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS;
OCEAN MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS;
SKANDIA MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY (UNITED KINGDOM), LTD.,
ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS;
COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY, PUBLIC LIABILITY COMPANY,
ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS;

-- 1 of 3 --

2
THREADNEEDLE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS;
TERRA NOVA INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS,
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(98-CV-2187)
_________________________
December 29, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This dispute regards the interpretation of
various contractual provisions on cross-
indemnifications and insurance responsibilities.
The parties disagree as to which of them is
contractually obligated to pay for injury to an
employee of a third-party contractor incurred
while performing work within the scope of the
contract.
Sonat Exploration Company, Inc. (“So-
nat”), and Falcon Drilling Company, Inc.
(“Falcon”), entered an offshore drilling
contract under which Falcon furnished Sonat
with the FalRig82, a jack-up drilling vessel
used to drill oil wells in navigable waters.
Under the contract, Sonat and Falcon cross-
indemnified each other, and Falcon was further
responsible for obtaining insurance for all
claims and contractual indemnities covered by
the contract.
When an employee of a third-party
contractor was injured on the FalRig82, Sonat
sued, seeking declaratory judgment that it is
not required to indemnify Falcon in this
situation and that Sonat is an additional
insured for all purposes under the general
liability insurance that Falcon is contractually
required to purchase.
We have reviewed the briefs, the record,
and the applicable law and have heard and
considered oral arguments of counsel. We
conclude that the district court properly
entered summary judgment for Sonat on the
basis that Sonat’s was the only reasonable in-
terpretation of the contract. The court
decided that the contract requires Falcon to
maintain insurance for all the indemnities
covered by the contract, including those
indemnities that Sonat owes Falcon, and that
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has
determined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the contract requires that Sonat be an
additional insured on the general commercial
liability insurance purchased by Falcon. We
therefore affirm, essentially for the reasons set
forth by the district court in its comprehensive
opinion of September 23, 1999, and in its
ruling denying Falcon’s motion for new trial of
January 26, 2000.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --