Shell Western Exploration & Production, Inc. v. Offshore Hammers, Inc.;

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. Rule 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30312
SHELL WESTERN EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellee-Cross-Appellant,
FALCON DRILLING CO.,
Plaintiff - Counter Defendant -
Appellee-Cross-Appellant,
v.
OFFSHORE HAMMERS, INC.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
UNI STOREBRAND INSURANCE CO. (UK) LTD.;
OFFSHORE HAMMERS, INC.,
Defendants - Counter Claimants -
Appellants-Cross-Appellees.
_______________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(96-CV-1717)
_______________________________
March 10, 2000
Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellants-cross-appellees Offshore Hammers, Inc. (“Offshore
Hammers”) and UNI Storebrand Insurance Company (“Storebrand”)
appeal from the district court’s ruling holding Storebrand liable

-- 1 of 2 --

2
to appellee-cross-appellant Shell Western Exploration &
Production, Inc. (“Shell”) in the amount of $488,000 and denying
Storebrand tort indemnity recovery against appellee-cross-
appellant Falcon Drilling Company (“Falcon”). After a thorough
analysis of the district court’s measured and comprehensive
ruling, as well as studied consideration of the briefs and
record, we conclude that the district court’s judgment should be
upheld in its entirety. The district court properly classified
the contract between Shell and Falcon providing transportation
for Offshore Hammers’s workers as an incidental contract within
the definition of Offshore Hammers’s commercial liability policy
supplied by Storebrand. The district court likewise did not err
when it found that Falcon was not conventionally subrogated to
Shell’s rights against Storebrand. And finally, the district
court correctly discerned that Storebrand was not entitled to
tort indemnity recovery from Falcon where the only liability
Storebrand faced arose from contract. We therefore affirm,
essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s
excellent and well-reasoned ruling of July 31, 1998.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --