 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Amazi v. Atlantic Richfield Co.8/9/1991
Submitted on briefs June 28, 1991.
This appeal involves an indemnification dispute. The parties involved were both defendants in two underlying suits. Appellant and Cross-Defendant Grant-Norpac (GN) appeals the order of the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, granting summary judgment to the Respondent and Cross-Claimant Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) on its cross-claim for indemnification in the underlying lawsuits. We affirm.
GN raises a sole issue on appeal:
Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment to ARCO on its cross-claim for indemnification, including indemnification for ARCO's own alleged negligence, based on the language of the contract between the parties?
ARCO also raises an issue on cross-appeal:
Did the District Court err in not awarding ARCO its attorney's fees expended to prove its cross-claim for indemnification?
This case arose out of seismic exploration in and around the Helena Valley. On January 3, 1983, ARCO entered into an agreement with GN, whereby GN was to conduct seismic testing activities for ARCO for the purpose of mineral and oil exploration. Pursuant to the agreement, ARCO would designate certain services it wanted GN to conduct in locations designated by ARCO, with specific instructions contained in a series of supplementary agreements.
In 1983 and 1984 GN ran shot-lines in the Helena Valley at locations designated by ARCO. Shot-lines consist of a linear series of sticks topped with explosives running in a particular direction. The explosives are detonated simultaneously and the velocities of the resulting shockwaves that pass through the ground provide data that may be indicative of mineral or oil deposits in the area. The contract indicates that the location of the shotlines and the equipment used, as well as specifications for the work, were provided by ARCO.
About this same time two other companies, Geosource, Inc., and CGG American Services, Inc., were also conducting geophysical surveys in the area, setting off similar explosive devices.
These suits arose when the plaintiff landowners sued ARCO, GN, Geosource and CGG alleging that the exploration work of the defendants had damaged their property. The landowners contended that the use of above-ground explosives in the Helena Valley was negligent.
GN and ARCO requested the District Court to interpret the indemnity clause of the contract between the parties. The court ruled that the indemnity provision required GN to indemnify ARCO if the trier of fact determined that both ARCO and GN were negligent to some degree; GN would not have to indemnify ARCO only if the plaintiffs' injuries arose due to the sole negligence of ARCO. ARCO offered the defense of this matter to GN in October of 1986. GN refused to defend. ARCO incurred in defending some $64,000.00 worth of attorney's fees and costs. GN eventually settled the plaintiffs' cases and obtained releases for itself and ARCO. ARCO did not contribute to the settlements. ARCO moved for summary judgment requesting that under the contract GN indemnify ARCO for its attorney's fees and costs. The District Court granted summary judgment ruling that ARCO was entitled to costs and fees expended in defending the underlying claims, but not to the fees expended in proving its contractual right to indemnification. GN appealed from the orders granting ARCO's indemnity claim and fees. ARCO cross-appealed from the order denying its claim for costs and fees expended in establishing its right to indemnification.
First, we note that this is an appeal from summary judgment. Our standa
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|