243 So. 3d 613
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Brad McCary, an IMS employee, was injured on March 3, 2008 while working aboard an Oceaneering vessel; IMS's insurer Signal paid LHWCA benefits.
- McCary sued Oceaneering for negligence; IMS and Signal intervened seeking subrogation/reimbursement of benefits paid if McCary recovered.
- IMS and Oceaneering had executed a Mutual Indemnity and Waiver Agreement on September 27, 2006.
- McCary and Oceaneering moved for summary judgment, arguing the agreement waived IMS/Signal’s subrogation rights; Intervenors contended the agreement was limited to situations where both parties were contracted to a common third party.
- The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Intervenors’ claims; the court of appeal affirmed, holding the agreement unambiguous and applicable when IMS worked directly for Oceaneering.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2006 Mutual Indemnity and Waiver Agreement bars IMS/Signal’s subrogation when IMS was performing work directly for Oceaneering | Agreement waives all subrogation/release rights and applies to the incident because parties intended to modify their relationship generally | Intervenors: "Whereas" clause limits the agreement to situations where both parties were working for a common third party, so it does not apply here | Agreement is clear on its face and applies to operations "associated with or incident to offshore operations" whether IMS worked for Oceaneering directly or under a third-party contract; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sims v. Mulhearn Funeral Home, Inc., 956 So.2d 583 (La. 2007) (contract interpretation and ambiguity as question of law)
- McKinney v. South Central Bell Telephone Company, 590 So.2d 1220 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (principles for construing indemnity contracts)
- Liem v. Austin Power, Inc., 569 So.2d 601 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (indemnity contract construction principles)
- Nassif v. Sunrise Homes, Inc., 739 So.2d 183 (La. 1999) (indemnity may be express or implied)
- Naquin v. Louisiana Power & Light Company, 943 So.2d 1156 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (contract of indemnity governs parties and must be interpreted by its terms)
- Succession of Ramp, 212 So.2d 419 (La. 1968) (whereas clauses state reasons/intent but do not alone control contract interpretation)
- Reynolds v. Bordelon, 172 So.3d 607 (La. 2015) (appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- Succession of Hickman, 217 So.3d 1240 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (summary judgment burdens and materiality under applicable substantive law)