Barnett v. American Construction Hoist, Inc., 91 So. 3d 345

Barnett, a Buquet employee, died riding a construction hoist owned/installed by ACHI; plaintiffs sues ACHI for negligence in installation/supply/rent of hoist.
ACHI asserted a third-party demand against Buquet/Charter seeking defense and indemnification under a rental agreement with a Kentucky choice-of-law clause.
ACHI moved for partial summary judgment on indemnity, arguing Kentucky law applies and requires Buquet to indemnify for ACHI’s damages.
Buquet urged Louisiana public policy disfavoring indemnity for the indemnitee’s sole negligence, and that Kentucky law should not apply.
The district court denied summary judgment, finding Kentucky indemnity language could impliedly cover sole negligence but conflicted with Louisiana public policy; appellate review ensued.
The court ultimately held that Louisiana law governs, Kentucky choice-of-law clause unenforceable, and Buquet does not owe indemnity to ACHI.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Kentucky law govern indemnity despite Louisiana public policy?	ACHI	Buquet	No; Louisiana public policy applies; Kentucky law not enforced.
Is Buquet obligated to defend/indemnify ACHI under Louisiana law?	ACHI	Buquet	No; indemnity not unequivocally extending to ACHI’s sole negligence.

Berry v. Orleans Parish School Board, 830 So.2d 283 (La. 2002) (public policy disfavoring indemnification for sole negligence)
Arnold v. Stupp Corp., 205 So.2d 797 (La. App. 1st Cir.1967) (general words do not imply indemnity for sole negligence)
Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S., Inc. v. Certain Underwriters S.C., 837 So.2d 11 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2002) (choice-of-law provision presumed valid; burden to prove invalid)
Reynolds Metals Co. v. J.U. Schickli & Bros., Inc., 548 S.W.2d 841 (Ky.1977) (Ky. view allows implied indemnity for sole negligence)
Fosson v. Ashland Oil & Refining Co., 309 S.W.2d 176 (Ky.1957) (Ky. indemnity language may be broader for sole negligence)