Chatelain v. Fluor Daniel Construction Co.
179 So. 3d 791
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- FEMA retained Fluor to transport and install trailers; Fluor used Reavis as a subcontractor under a Blanket Ordering Agreement (BOA).
- BOA required Reavis to defend/indemnify Fluor and name Fluor as an additional insured with a specific endorsement, and guarantee work for 24 months.
- Chatelain sued Fluor and an unknown subcontractor after injuring herself exiting a FEMA trailer; Reavis was alleged to have installed steps linked to the injury.
- Fluor tendered Chatelain’s claim to Reavis and Guilford; Guilford settled Chatelain’s claims, leaving Fluor’s indemnity/defense/insurer-misconduct claims against Reavis and Guilford pending.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Reavis and Guilford, denying Fluor; on appeal, the court grants summary judgment in favor of Guilford but reverses as to Reavis, remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of indemnity under BOA | Fluor argues indemnity covers injuries arising out of Reavis' performance of work. | Reavis contends indemnity is limited to injuries arising during performance of its work, with a temporal element. | Indemnity has a causal connection, not a strict temporal limit; genuine issues exist for Fluor against Reavis. |
| Coverage under Guilford policy endorsement for Fluor | Chatelain’s injury arose from Reavis’ ongoing operations; endorsement should cover Fluor. | Endorsement covers ongoing operations; once operations completed, no coverage for completed operations. | Ongoing operations cannot encompass completed operations; no coverage for Fluor under Guilford for this claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perkins v. Rubicon, 563 So.2d 258 (La. 1990) (arising-out indemnity requires property-like causal connection)
- Berry v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 830 So.2d 283 (La. 2002) (causation-like standard for arising out of contract performance)
- Klutz v. New Orleans Pub. Facility Mgmt., Inc., 921 So.2d 1021 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2005) (causation standard for indemnity under performance of work)
- Jones v. Capitol Enterprises, Inc., 89 So.3d 474 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (ambiguous endorsements construed in favor of coverage; causal interpretation favored)
- Carl E. Woodward, L.L.C. v. Acceptance Indem., Ins. Co., 743 F.3d 91 (5th Cir. 2014) (ongoing vs completed operations; no coverage for completed operations)
- Weitz Co., LLC v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 181 P.3d 309 (Colo. App. 2007) (ongoing vs completed operations nuance for endorsements)
- Noble v. Wellington Associates, Inc., 145 So.3d 714 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (interpretation of completed vs ongoing operations in indemnity context)