### 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 Itel Containers International * Corporation and Genstar * [UNPUBLISHED] Container Corporation, * * Appellees.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.

M itsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., appeals the adverse grant of summar y judgment by the District Court in favor of Itel Containers and Gensta r 1 Contain er Corporation in this indemnification action arising from th e 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 wer e contaminated with a chemical which had damaged A-B's

### All other parties originally involved in this litigatio n 2 

### settled their claims.
-2- beer. CCS then filed third-party indemnity and contribution claims agains t Mitsui, the lessee of the shipping container tha t allegedly was the source of the contamination, and Mitsui's subsidiaries. Mitsui and it s 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 an d Gensta r for indemnity or contribution, and Genstar filed a counterclai m agains t Mitsui seeking indemnification. Both Itel and Genstar file d motions for summary judgment, arguing that the indemnification clause in thei r long-term lease agreement with Mitsui unequivocally provided fo r indemnification for all claims arising out of Mi tsui'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 clai ms 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 Cour t awarded Itel and Genstar attorney fees, costs, a nd 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 Gensta r were negligent and st rictly 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 th e 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 judgmen t of the District Court for the reasons set forth in its thorough and wellreasoned opinion. Se e 8th Cir. R. 47B. Itel and Genstar have asked this Court to award them t heir costs and attorney fees on appeal. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39, we allow Itel and Genstar thei r costs. We decline to award attorney fees. All pending motions before thi s Court ordered taken with the case are denied.

A true copy.

Attest:

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