The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge 1

for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

___________

No. 94-3589

No. 95-1083

No. 95-2364

___________

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Itel Containers International *

Corporation and Genstar * [UNPUBLISHED]

Container Corporation, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: February 12, 1996

 Filed: April 9, 1996

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

 Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., appeals the adverse grant of summary

judgment by the District Court in favor of Itel Containers and Genstar

1

Container Corporation in this indemnification action arising from the

contamination of a shipment of beer by a chemical named trichloranisole.

This suit originated when Anheuser-Busch (A-B) sued Crown Cork & Seal

(CCS), a bottle cap company, alleging that the CCS-supplied caps were

contaminated with a chemical which had damaged A-B's
 All other parties originally involved in this litigation

2

settled their claims. 

-2-

beer. CCS then filed third-party indemnity and contribution claims against

Mitsui, the lessee of the shipping container that allegedly was the source

of the contamination, and Mitsui's subsidiaries. Mitsui and its

subsidiaries next sued Itel and Genstar, lessors of the shipping container,

seeking indemnity for any liability to CCS. Itel then filed suit against

Mitsui for indemnification. Mitsui in turn counterclaimed against Itel and

Genstar for indemnity or contribution, and Genstar filed a counterclaim

against Mitsui seeking indemnification. Both Itel and Genstar filed

motions for summary judgment, arguing that the indemnification clause in

their long-term lease agreement with Mitsui unequivocally provided for

indemnification for all claims arising out of Mitsui's use of the shipping

container. 

2

 

The District Court granted summary judgment to Itel and Genstar,

concluding that the indemnification agreement protected the lessors from

all claims arising out of or incident to the ownership, selection,

operation, and use of the shipping container, including any claims based

on the lessors' own negligence or strict liability. The District Court

awarded Itel and Genstar attorney fees, costs, and expenses, and dismissed

Mitsui's counterclaim. 

On appeal Mitsui argues the District Court erred in: (1) construing

the lease to apply to both Itel and Genstar; (2) interpreting the lease to

require indemnification in light of Mitsui's argument that Itel and Genstar

were negligent and strictly liable; (3) dismissing Mitsui's counterclaim;

and (4) awarding Itel and Genstar litigation expenses and attorney fees.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the arguments of the

parties, we conclude no error of law appears and that summary judgment was

properly granted. Concluding also that an extended
-3-

opinion by this Court would lack precedential value, we affirm the judgment

of the District Court for the reasons set forth in its thorough and wellreasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Itel and Genstar have asked this

Court to award them their costs and attorney fees on appeal. Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39, we allow Itel and Genstar their

costs. We decline to award attorney fees. All pending motions before this

Court ordered taken with the case are denied. 

 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.