 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[W] Chesapeake Operating8/23/2001
ic policy and thus, the indemnity agreement in this case would be found unenforceable. The LOIA provides:
A. The legislature finds that an inequity is foisted on certain contractors and their employees by the defense or indemnity provisions, either or both, contained in some agreements pertaining to wells for oil, gas, or water, or drilling for minerals, which occur in a solid, liquid, gaseous, or other state, to the extent those provisions apply to death or bodily injury to persons. It is the intent of the legislature by this Section to declare null and void and against public policy of the state of Louisiana any provision in any agreement which requires defense and/or indemnification, for death or bodily injury to person, where there is negligence or fault (strict liability) on the part of the indemnitee, or an agent or employee of the indemnitee, or an independent contractor who is directly responsible to the indemnitee.
B. Any provision contained in, collateral to, or affecting an agreement pertaining to a well for oil, gas, or water, or drilling for minerals which occur in a solid, liquid, gaseous, or other state, is void and unenforceable to the extent that it purports to or does provide for defense or indemnity, or either, to the indemnitee against loss or liability for damages arising out of or resulting from death or bodily injury to persons, which is caused by or results from the sole or concurrent negligence or fault (strict liability) of the indemnitee, or an agent, employee, or an independent contractor who is directly responsible to the indemnitee. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. ยง 9.2780(A)-(B) (West Supp. 2001).
Clearly, the Louisiana legislature found it inequitable and against public policy to require subcontractors to indemnify their employers for any and all injuries that might arise in connection with their work contracts. Id. It is abundantly clear from the language of the statute that the Louisiana policy against indemnity provisions in oilfield drilling contracts is a fundamental one and the Louisiana courts construing the LOIA would refuse to enforce such an indemnity provision.
The provisions in the contract in this case provide that the Contractor (Nabors) shall indemnify the Operator (Chesapeake) for any claims brought by the Contractor's employees or agents, and the Operator shall indemnify the Contractor for any claims brought by the Operator's employees or agents. Thus, in applying the LOIA to these indemnity provisions, the Louisiana courts would refuse to enforce the partys' indemnity agreement. The trial court in this case applied Texas law and granted summary judgment to Nabors, ordering Chesapeake to defend and indemnify Nabors. Based on this determination, we hold that Louisiana has a materially greater interest in deciding the enforceability of the indemnity agreement in this case. Accordingly, the trial court should have determined that Louisiana law applied.
We hold that the trial court erred in applying Texas law to the parties' contract. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's judgment and we remand for further proceedings.
Judgment rendered and Opinion filed August 23, 2001.
Publish -- TEX. R. APP. P. 47.3(b).
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|