Astec, Inc. v. Rouse Polymerics International, Inc.

The Honorable Daniel M. Friedman, United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by
*
designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 08a0370n.06
Filed: June 24, 2008
Case No. 07-5932
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ASTEC, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
ROUSE POLYMERICS INTERNATIONAL,
INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
BEFORE: BATCHELDER, SUTTON, and FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judges.*
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Astec, Inc. (“Astec”) and
Defendant-Appellee Rouse Polymerics International, Inc. (“Rouse”) entered into a written agreement
in 1993 under which Astec designed, built, and installed a dryer system for use in Rouse’s rubber-
processing plant in Vicksburg, Mississippi. The agreement provided that, in the event of an accident
resulting in damages, Rouse would indemnify or hold harmless Astec so long as a court of competent
jurisdiction determined that Rouse’s negligent operation of the dryer caused the accident or Rouse
consented to Astec’s settling the case. On May 16, 2002, the dryer system exploded at Rouse’s
facility, killing five employees and injuring fourteen others.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The employees sued Astec in Mississippi state court alleging negligent design, manufacture,
and installation of the dryer. Astec denied liability and filed a declaratory action asking the District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to declare Rouse negligent and liable for any damages
assessed against Astec; the district court dismissed the action citing, among other things, the forum
selection clause in the agreement. Thereafter — without the consent of Rouse — Astec and its
insurance carrier settled with the employees for an undisclosed amount.
On September 20, 2004, Astec filed the present action in the Eastern District of Tennessee
in accordance with the venue and choice of law provisions of the agreement, seeking indemnification
from Rouse. Rouse filed for summary judgment, alleging that it had no duty to indemnify Astec
because no court of competent jurisdiction determined that Rouse’s negligent operation of the dryer
caused the explosion and Rouse had not otherwise consented to Astec’s settlement with the
employees. The district court granted Rouse’s motion for summary judgment and Astec timely
appealed that decision to this court.
After hearing oral argument and carefully reviewing the record, the law, and the parties’
briefs, we conclude that the district court’s opinion correctly sets out the applicable law and correctly
applies the law to the facts contained in the record. The issuance of a full written opinion by this
court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s
opinion, we AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --