Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30314/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30314-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Caddo Bossier Parishes Port Commission
Appellant
Olin Corporation
Appellee

Document Text:

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30314

 

OLIN CORP

Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee

v.

CADDO BOSSIER PARISHES PORT COMMISSION

Defendant - Counter Claimant - Appellant

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport

USDC No. 01-CV-2270

--------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The district court granted summary judgment to Olin

Corporation (“Olin”), holding that the Caddo-Bossier Parishes

Port Commission (the “Port”) was obligated to defend, indemnify

and hold Olin harmless from the claims and demands of the

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) for the

investigation and remediation of property purchased by the Port

from Olin and for reimbursement for oversight costs to the LDEQ

incurred in connection with the property. We agree with the

district court that the plain language of the indemnity agreement

included in the Sale Contract and Warranty Deed entered into

between Olin and the Port covering the sale of the property from

 Case: 03-30314 Document: 0051545137 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2004
1 Our conclusion in this respect is bolstered (although

it need not be) by the pains Olin took to be sure that the Port

understood the various hazardous chemicals that Olin had placed

in the landfill, by the “As Is” nature of the sale, and by the

fact that CERCLA predated the sale transaction by three years,

all of which suggest that the parties specifically contemplated

possible environmental liability.

2

Olin to the Port compels this result. The investigation and

remediation costs at issue here fall squarely within the

contractual provision obligating the Port to “indemnify and

defend [Olin] . . . and hold [Olin] harmless from any and all

claims with respect to any actual and/or alleged . . . damage to

any property arising out of or related to, [or] in connection

with the Property including the landfill, and from contaminants

emanating from the landfill.” Although the LDEQ’s claims are

technically for reimbursement, investigation, and remediation,

the claims arose because of damage to the property. The broad

language “with respect to” encompasses claims that are premised

on property damages, such as the claims at issue in this case.1

See Olin Corp. v. Yeargin Inc., 146 F.3d 398, 408-09 (6th Cir.

1998)(holding that, under Tennessee law, an indemnification

agreement covering “all loss, damage, liability, claims, demands,

costs, or suits” for “property damage” and “personal injury”

included claims under CERCLA and other environmental statutes

resulting from the release of hazardous substances).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-30314 Document: 0051545137 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2004