Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Gunderson Rail Services
712 F.3d 1214
8th Cir.2013Background
- Clark sued Union Pacific under FELA, SRSA, and Safety Appliance Act for injuries at Gunderson’s railyard; indemnity sought against Gunderson.
- Gunderson and Union Pacific settled with Clark for $1.15 million, each paying $575,000 to Clark, and proceeded to trial on Gunderson’s indemnity liability.
- TLA allocates losses between Railroad and Industry, with Industry liable for intraplant switching and standards violations, and joint negligence split, subject to defined standards.
- District court found Gunderson not liable for intraplant switching or standards violations; held Gunderson liable for half of Clark’s damages, UP for the other half.
- After settlement, UP sought attorney’s fees as a ‘loss’ under the TLA and post-settlement indemnification fees under Arkansas 16-22-308; Gunderson cross-appealed on fees.
- District court awarded UP half of pre-settlement fees as ‘loss’ but denied post-settlement indemnification fees; UP was not a prevailing party for 16-22-308 purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intraplant switching triggers full indemnity. | UP argued Gunderson’s intraplant switching obliged full indemnity. | Gunderson contested intrusion; not proven. | No full indemnity; supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether standards violation triggers full indemnity. | OSHA/DOL standards violations shown; full indemnity due. | No proven OSHA/DOL violation. | Standards violation not proven; no full indemnity. |
| Whether UP is a prevailing party under 16-22-308 for post-settlement fees. | UP should recover post-settlement fees as prevailing party. | UP did not prevail on indemnity amount. | UP not prevailing party; fee award under 16-22-308 denied. |
| Whether the contract allows recovery of post-settlement indemnity-related attorney’s fees and costs. | TLA ‘loss’ includes attorneys’ fees for enforcement. | Conventional rule bars fees incurred enforcing indemnity unless contract allows. | TLA permits half of attorney’s fees and costs; fees related to enforcement recoverable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (Supreme Court 1985) (clear error standard; weigh credibility and evidence)
- Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Bellaire Corp., 921 F.2d 760 (8th Cir. 1990) (contractual indemnity standard; industry indemnity duties)
- Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Hughes Bros., Inc., 671 F.2d 279 (8th Cir. 1982) (indemnity and contract interpretation principles)
- In re Fitzgerald Marine & Repair, Inc., 619 F.3d 851 (8th Cir. 2010) (contract interpretation; indemnity provisions reviewed de novo)
- Urban Hotel Dev. Co. v. President Dev. Grp., L.C., 535 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2008) (fee awards; standard of review)
- CJ Bldg. Corp. v. TRAC-10, 249 S.W.3d 793 (Ark. 2007) (prevailing party analysis under Arkansas law)
- Warner Holdings, Ltd. v. Abrego, 688 S.W.2d 724 (Ark. 1985) (fees in indemnity context; contract-based recovery)
- Intents, Inc. v. Sw. Elec. Power Co., 376 S.W.3d 435 (Ark. 2011) (all loss includes indemnification-related fees)