### Bas ed on t oday’ s opinion , the Motion t o Ame nd or Cl arif y Opini on fi le d by 1 

### Tran soceanEnterprise, In c., is dismissedas moo t.

I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI

NO. 2 0 0 8 - CA- 0 1 8 2 3 - S CT TRA NSOCE

AN ENTERP

RI S E, I NC.
v. I NGALLSS

HI PBUI LDI NG, I NC. ON M OTI ON F OR RE HEAR I NG D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 10/ 2008 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. ROBER T P
. KREBS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: J ACKSON COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: J OH N A
. SCI ALD ON E T ODD G. CR AW F OR D RY AN A. HAHN A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E : R I C H A R D P
. S A L L O U M J
. THOM AS HAM RI CK, J R. NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 03/ 11/ 2010 M O T I O N FO R R E H E A R I N G FI L E D : 10/ 07/ 2009 M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he m oti on for reheari ng i s grant ed. T he ori ginal op i nions are w i thd raw n and t hese 1
o p inion s are su b sti tuted there for. ¶ 2
. In g a lls S h ip b u ild in g , In c ., a n d T ra n so c e a n E n terp rise , In c ., w e re n a m e d d e fe n d a n ts i n a per s onal
- i nj ury act i on w hi ch w as s ett l ed. I ngal l s Shi pbui l di ng, I nc. , al l eged a cl ai m f or

### Inga ll s Shipbuil ding, Inc ., bec am e Northrop Grumman Ship Sys te ms , Inc ., in 2002, 2 

### andin 2 00 8, b ecame No rthro p G rummanSh ipb uild ing , Inc. 2 contr actual i ndemni ty pur s uantt o a Shi pyar d A gr eementbetw een i t s el f and Tra ns ocea n E n terp rise , In c . T h e C irc u it C o u rt o f Ja c k so n C o u n ty e n ter e d ju d g m e n t g ra n tin g In g a lls S h ip b u ild in g , In c ., in d e m n ity , an d a s a re su lt, T ra n so c e a n E n terp rise , In c ., a p p e a led to th is C o u rt. F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶3
. T hi s matt e ra r i s e s f r om a l aw s ui tf

i l ed by Erni e C ar dw el l agai ns t T r ans ocea n E n terprise, Inc
. , (T ran so ce an ) an d Ing all s S h ipb u il d ing , Inc
. , (Ing all s) in th e C ir cu itC o u rt 2 of J acks on Count y. C ar dw el l al l eged thathe w as i nj ur ed on M ay 28, 1999, w hi l e empl oyed by C oas t l i ne C ontr act ors , Inc. , ( C oas t l i ne) and w or ki ng aboar d the dr i l l s hi p D is cove r er E nter prise a s a w el der/pi pe f i t t er . T he D iscoverer E nter prise o rig in a lly w a s c o n stru c ted in S p ain, be fore sail ing to In g all s’ sh ipy ard in P asc ag o u la, M issi ssipp i, for install a tio n o f a tw enty- s t ory dr i l l derr i ck and va r i ous dri l l i ng m odul es . A l l egedl y, w hi l e C ar dw el l w as
s i t t i ng on the pos t , the ves s el ’ s ba l l as tt anks w er e adj us t ed, c aus i ng i tt o s hi f t , w hi ch r es ul t ed i n t ens i on s o gr eatthati tbr oke aw ay and r i pped the r i ggi ng pos tf r om the dec k. T hi s s er i es
o f ev en ts cau sed C ard w ell t o fl y ap p rox im ately tw en ty feet i n to th e air an d land o n the s h ip’s deck , renderi ng him un con sci ou s. ¶4
. C a rd w e ll su b se q u e n tly file d this pe rson al-i n jury ac ti o n for d am ag es a g ains t b o th T r ans ocea n and I ngal l s . C ar dw el l ’ s cl ai m w as s ett l ed for $6 25, 000 ( $300, 000 pai d by T ra n so c e a n , $ 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 p a id b y In g a lls, a n d $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 p a id b y w o rk e rs’ c o m p e n sa tio n ). In g a lls

### Inga ll s a ls o argues that t he Shipyard Agre em ent requ ire d Transoc ean to procur e 3 

### liabilityinsurance to pro tect Ing alls again st Cardwell’s claims. The r ec ord r ef

le ct s that both parties, through their att orne ys, agr ee d to s ubmi t t he 4 

### issues to the trial ju dg e onbriefs an d o ral arguments, w itho ut th e ben efit of a jury. 3 f i l ed a c r os s - cl ai m agai ns tT r ans ocea n, al l egi ng thatthe Shi pyar d A gr eementbe tw een them
o b li g ated T ran so ce an to d efe n d an d in d em n if y Ing all s. A rt icl e X V I of the S h ipy ard

3 A g re e m e n t b e tw e e n T ra n s o c e a n E n te rp ri s e a n d In g a lls s ta te d , in tera lia : Build er and

Owne r ea chagreeto defend , indem nif y and ho ld t heoth er and

the ir re s p e c tiv ea f

f il iate s , o f f ic e rs , dire c to rs , a g e ntsan d e m p lo y e e s an d

s u b c o ntra c tor s f

ree and h armles s from

and a gains t anyand

a ll claim s, d em an ds , cau ses o f action, judgments or liabi li ti es of every ki nd and charact er (incl uding, without li mitation, the cost of the sui t and reasonable attorneys’ fees) broughtby anyi nv it ees of the indemnitor or its subcontract ors orrepr esentati ves orany survivor of the foregoing on acc ount o f inju

ry to or death of

anysuch parties or damag es to th eir prope rtyin connection with the wo rk . The indemnity obligations assumed in the preceding sente nc e sh allbewi tho ut l imit and wi tho ut reg ard

to t hecau se o r ca

us es t he reof (includi ng pre-exis ting condit ions), the uns eaworthiness of any vessel or vess els or the neglige nce of any party or parties, whethersuch neglig en ce b e sole, joi nt or concurrent , active orpassive or gr oss. ¶5. O n J anuary 10, 2008, the C i r cui t C our t of J ackson C ou nty, Judg e R obert P. K r ebs pr esi di ng, hear d or al ar gum ent s , and s ubs equent l y, on J ul y 30, 2008, ent er ed an or der 4 g ra n tin g In g a lls in d e m n ity a s to T ra n so c e a n in th e a m o u n t o f $ 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 , su b jec t to p re ju d g m e n t in ter e st; h o w e v e r, In g a lls’ re q u e st fo r atto rn e y s’ fe e s w a s d e n ied . A s a re su lt,
a F in a l Ju d g m e n t, da ted A u g u st 4 , 2 0 0 8 , w a s e n ter e d . O n A u g u st 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , In g a lls filed its M o tio n to A lter o r A m e n d O rd e r a n d Ju d g m e n t, se e k in g a tto rn e y s’ f e e s a n d e x p e n se s in def endi ng agai ns tC ar dw el l ’ s cl ai m s . T r ans ocea n r es ponded thati tagr eed w i th the pos i t i on
o f In g a lls, “b u t so lely f

ort he r eas on t hati f

i ndemni ty i s ow ed underthe Shi pyar d A gr eement

### 4

ati s s ue, then Tra ns ocean agr ees the contr actw oul d otherw i s e pr ovi de f orthe r ecove r y of att orney’ s f

ees as a componentof

thi s i ndem ni ty. ” ( E m phas i s add ed. ) Thus, T r ans ocea n
r e s e r v e d i t s r i g h tt o c h a l l e n g e t h e u n d e r l y i n g b a s i s u p o n wh i c h i n d e mn i ty wa s a wa r d e d
. On O ct ober10, 2008, t he J acks on C ounty C i r cui tC our tent er ed i t s A m ended O r derand Fi nal Ju d g m e n t, statin g th a t In g a lls sh o u ld re c o v e r f ro m T ra n so c e a n “ th e su m o f $ 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 p lu s its
r eas onabl e att orney’ s f

ees of $33, 619. 50 and expe ns es of $7, 881. 94 i n def

endi ng agai ns tt he cl ai m s of E r ni e C ar dw el l i n thi s case, p l us pre j udgm enti nt er es tof

$118, 112. 72 cal cul at ed at8% perannum i n accor d w i th Sect i on 75- 17- 1( 1) M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed f r om J une 1 5 , 2 0 0 4
. . . p lu s p o st-ju d g m e n t in ter e st o f 8 % p e r a n n u m fro m th e d a te h e re o f a n d a ll co sts
o f su it h e re in .” T ra n so c e a n tim e ly p e rfe c ted th is a p p e a l. DI S CU S S I ON ¶6. T r ans ocea n cont ends that the i ndemni ty pr ovi s i on of the Shi pyar d A gr eement i s not tr i gger ed bec aus e Erni e C ar dw el l w as an i ndepende ntcontr act orof T r ans ocea n, as oppos ed t o a s ubcontr act ororan i nvi t ee. Furt her, T rans ocea n ar gues that , even a s s um i ng t he i ndemni ty provi s i on i s t r i gger ed, Inga l l s ’ cl ai m i s bar r ed by M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 31- 5- 41. T he i s s ues pr es ent ed t o thi s C our tf orc ons i der at i on a r e as f ol l ow s : ( 1) w hetherthe tr i al
courte rr ed i n gr ant i ng i ndemni ty t o I ngal l s i n i t s c r os s - cl ai m a gai ns tTr ans ocea n pu rs uant t o the S hipyard A gr eementbetw een thes e part i es ; ( 2) w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed by in terp re tin g th e c o n tra c t term s fo r in d e m n ity to a n in v itee , w h e n C o a stlin e e m p lo y e e E rn ie C ar dw el l w as aboar d the vessel as an i ndepende ntcontr act oratthe t i m e of hi s al l eged i n j u r i e s ; ( 3 ) wh e th e rth e tr i a l c o u r te rr e d i n a p p l y i n g M i s s i s s i p p i l a w o v e rg e n e r a l ma r i t i me

### 5

law , w h ich d o es n o t r ec o g n ize the statu s o f an inv it ee , an d l ikew ise, w h ethe r th e tri al co u rt
err ed i n f i ndi ng t he D is cove r erE nt er pr is e w as not a ves s el capa bl e of navi gat i on; and ( 4) al t ernat i vel y, i f

M i s s i s s i ppi l aw appl i es , w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed by notappl yi ng M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 31-5- 41, w hi ch i nval i dat es the i ndemni ty pr ovi s i on ati s s ue. T he
u lti m a te is su e b e fo re th is C o u rt is w h e th e r th e trial c o u rt e rre d in g ra n tin g in d e m n ity to I ngal l s . W e thus combi ne thes e i s s ues and r es t at e the cr i t i cal i s s ue bef or e us f orthe s ake of t oday’ s di s cus s i on. W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D I N GRANT I NG I N D EM N I TY TO I N G A LL S I N I TS C R O SS- C LA I M A G A I N ST TR ANS OCEA N P URS UANT TO T HE S HI P YARD A GREE M EN T BE TW EE N TH ESE PA R TIES. ¶7. “I n bench tr i al s , a ci r cui t j udge’ s f i ndi ngs ar e s ubj ect t o the s ame s t andar d of r evi ew
as t hos e of

a cha ncel l or . ” U

n i v. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. P ou n ders , 970 S o. 2d 14 1, 14 5 (M i ss. 2007) ( ci t i ng K

i ght v. Sheppard B ldg. Suppl y, I nc. , 5 3 7 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 5 , 1 3 5 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 )).

“ O u r fa m ili a r sta n d a rd o f re v iew re q u ire s th a t w h e n a trial ju d g e sits w ith o u t a ju ry , this C our tw i l l notd i sturb hi s f actual det erm i nat i ons w her e ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n t he
r ecor d t o s uppor tthos e f i ndi ngs . ” E z e l

l v. Wil lia ms , 724 So. 2d 396, 3 97 (M i ss . 1998) ( ci t i ng Y arbr ough v. Cam

phor , 6 4 5 S o . 2 d 8 6 7 , 8 6 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 ); O m nibank of Mantee v. U nite d S. Bank , 607 So. 2d 76, 82 ( M i s s . 1 992) )
. T hus , ours cope of r evi ew af

f or ds d e fe re n tia l tr e a tm e n t to th e tr ia l ju d g e ’s fi n d in g s . Ci t y o f Gre e nv il

le v. Jones , 925 So. 2d 106, 1 09 (M i ss . 2006)
. “[ T ] hi s C our toughtand gene r al l y w i l l af f i r m a tr i al courts i t t i ng
w i tho ut a j ury on a qu est i on of factunles s, based upo n subst anti al evi den ce, the co urtm ust

### 6

be mani f es t l y w r ong. ” Y

arbr ough , 6 4 5 S o . 2 d at 86 9 (cit ati o n s o m itted). “T h e w o rd ‘m an if est, ’ as d efine d in this co n text, m ea n s ‘un m ist ak ab le, clea r, p lai n , o r i n d ispu table.’” Singley v. Singley , 846 So. 2d 1004, 1007 ( M i s s . 2002) ( quot i ng Magee v. Magee , 661 So. 2 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 2 2 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 5 ) )
. T h i s Co u r t , h o we v e r , r e v i e ws q u e s t i o n s o f l a w de novo
. How ar d v. E s tate of

H ar perex r el

. H ar per , 947 So. 2d 854 , 8 56 (M i ss . 2006) ( ci t i ng Sennett v. U nited States Fid. & G uar. Co. , 7 5 7 S o . 2 d 2 0 6 , 2 0 9 (M is s . 2 0 0 0 ))
. Se e a l so H arrison Cou n t

y v. Cit y of G u l fport , 5 5 7 S o . 2 d 7 8 0 , 7 8 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). ¶8. B ef

or e the tr i al court , I ngal l s ar gued that M i s s i s s i ppi l aw s houl d a ppl y ove rgener al
m ar i t i m e l aw , and the tr i al courtagr eed. “I thas l ong been hel d thatnei thers hi p cons truct i on
nors uppl yi ng m at er i al s f orthatpurpos e i s a mar i t i m e bus i nes s . . . . ” L o w e v. In g a lls S h i pbuilding, D i v. of

L itton System s, I

nc. , 72 3 F. 2d 11 73 , 11 85 ( 5th Ci r . 19 84 ) ( c i t a t i on
om i t t ed)
. “[ T ] he s ame r eas ons w hi ch exc l ude s uch contr act s fr om admi r al ty j ur i s di ct i on l i kew i s e ap pl y t o agr eement s m ade a f t erthe hul l i s i n the w at er , f orthe w or k and mat er i al
n e c e ss a ry to c o n su m m a te a p a rtial c o n stru c tio n a n d b rin g th e v e ss e l in to c o n d iti o n to f unct i on as i nt ended. ” Tham e s T owboa t C o. v. T he Scho one r“Fra nc is McD ona ld” (The Fr ancis McD onald) , 2 5 4 U .S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 5 , 4 1 S . C t. 65 , 6 5 L . E d . 2 4 5 (1 9 2 0 ); s ee al s o Ca in
v. T r ansoc ean O

f f s hore U SA , I nc. , 518 F. 3d 295, 301 ( 5th C i r . 2008) ( “a s tructur e under
c o n s tru c t i o n r e ma i n s a n o n - v e s s e l u n t i l i ti s c o mp l e t e a n d r e a d y f o rd u ty u p o n th e s e a ” )
. As stat ed b y the tr ial c o u rt , “ [w ] h il e the v esse l w as ab le to sail to Ing all s u n d er it s o w n p o w er, itw as n o t i n c o n d it ion tha t i t co u ld p erfo rm the typ e o f du ty fo r w h ich it w as b u il t, there fore
m aki ng m ar i t i m e l aw i nappl i cabl e. ” The D is cove r erE nt er pr is e w a s b u ilta n d d e sig n e d to

### 7

b e a d ri ll sh ip; th ere fore , itw as n o t i n co n d it ion to fun cti o n as inten d ed u n ti l th e tw en ty-story d ri ll de rri ck an d va ri o u s dril li n g m o d u les w ere i n stal led a t Ing all s. A lso, the S h ipy ard A gr eementcont ai ned a c hoi ce- of
- l aw pr ovi s i on w hi ch s t at ed t hati tw oul d be governed by M i s s i s s i ppi l aw . “[ U ] nd eradmi r al ty l aw , w her e the part i es have i ncl uded a c hoi ce of l aw cl aus e, the s t at e’ s l aw w i l l govern unl es s the s t at e has no subst anti al re l at i ons hi p t o t he part i es or the tr ans act i on orthe s t at e’ s l aw conf l i ct s w i th the f

undament al purpos es of
m ar i t i m e l aw . ” Stoot

v. Fluor D r il

ling Serv s . , I

nc. , 8 5 1 F
. 2 d 1 5 1 4 , 1 5 1 7 (5th C ir
. 1 9 8 8 ). A s s uch, the tr i al courtcorr ect l y deter m i ned thatm ar i t i m e l aw does notappl y and that M i s s i s s i ppi l aw governs thi s di s put e. ¶9. T he tr i al courtal s o rul ed thatC ar dw el l w as an i nvi t ee, s t at i ng:

“ [A ]n in v itee is a p e rso n w h o g o e s u p o n th e p re m ise s o f a n o th e r in a n sw e r to the ex pr es s ori m pl i ed i nvi t at i on of the ow neroroccupa ntf orthei rm utual advant age. . . . ” Ma rtin v . B . P. E x p lo ra tio n & O il , 7 6 9 S o . 2 d 2 6 1 (M iss . C t. A pp. 2000)
. I ti s cl eart hatC ar dw el l w as on the D i s cover erE nt erpr i s e bas ed upon an expr es s i nvi t at i on t o be ther e. T he C our tcan s ee no otherw ay, under M iss iss ip p i law , to c las sify C a rd w e ll. A s evi dence d by the r ecor d, Car dw el l w as e m pl oyed by Coast l i ne, and C oas t l i ne empl oyees
n o t on ly p erfo rm ed w o rk a ssign m en ts atthe d ir ec ti o n o f T ran so ce an , b u t th ey ac tually w ere hous ed aboa r d the D iscoverer E nter prise . T h e trial c o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d isc re tio n in
rul i ng thatC ar dw el l w as an i nvi t ee unde rM i s s i s s i ppi l aw . T hi s C ourthas hel d that“an i nvi t ee i s a per s on w ho goe s upon the pr emi s es of anotheri n ans w ert o the expr es s ori m pl i ed i nvi t at i on of

the ow neroroccupa ntf orthei rm utual advant age. ” L eff ler v. S h arp , 891 So. 2d 152, 15 6 (M i ss . 2004) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. C ar dw el l w as aboar d the D is cove r er

### 8

E nt er pr is e atI ngal l s ’ shi py ard due t o the i nvi t at i on of T r ans ocea n vi a C oas t l i ne f orthe
m utual advant age of

al l part i es her ei n. ¶10. A s di s cus s ed by the tr i al court , w i th the cl as s i f i cat i on of

C ar dw el l as an i nvi t ee, t he lan g u a g e o f th e S h ip y a rd A g re e m e n t is c lea r, a n d T ra n so c e a n se e m in g ly h a s a d u ty to i ndemni f y I ngal l s . T hi s duty, how ever , a r guabl y c oul d be voi ded by M i s s i s si pp i C ode Sect i on 31- 5- 41 t o the ext entthatthe i ndemni ty pr ovi s i on i n the Shi pyar d A gr eement p rov id e s fo r ind em n if

icati o n o f Ing all s for In g all s’ ow n n eg li g en ce . T h e tri al co u rt ju stifia b ly d id n o t ad d re ss th e im p lica tio n s o f M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 3 1 -5 -4 1 . T h is sect i on st at es: W i th r es pectt o al l publ i c orpr i vat e contr act s orag reem ent s , f orthe con struct i on , alt era t i on , repai r orm ai ntenance o f bui l dings, structures, hi ghw ay br i dges , vi aduct s , w at er , s ew erorgas di s tr i but i on s ys t ems, orother w or k deal i ng w i th cons truct i on, orf orany movi ng, demol i t i on orexca vat i on connec t ed ther ew i th, every covena nt , pr om i s e and/ oragr eementcon t ai ned th e r e i n t o i n d e mn i f

y o rh o l d h a r ml e s s a n o th e rp e r s o n f r o m th a tp e r s o n ' s o wn negl i gence i s voi d as agai ns tpubl i c pol i cy and w hol l y unenf or cea bl e. T hi s s ect i on does notappl y t o cons truct i on bonds ori nsurance contr act s or agreem ents . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 31- 5- 41 ( R ev. 2008)
. T hi s s t atut e co uld reas onabl y be i nt erpr et ed as in v ali d ati n g ind em n ity o r “h o ld-h arm less” c laus es in co n stru cti o n co n tr ac ts t o ind em n if y
a n o th e r p e rs o n fr o m th a t p e rs o n ’s o w n n e g lig e n c e . I d. T ran so ce a n a n d Ing all s, h o w ev er, st i pu l at ed thatthe is sue of t ortal l ocati on of l i abil i ty w as not befor e the t ri al co urt , an d thus, notbef or e thi s C our t . I n addi t i on, nei therparty has ar gued f aul t , and ther e i s i ns uf

f i ci ent i nf or m at i on i n the r ecor d forthi s C our tt o det erm i ne t o w hatext ent , i f any, I ngal l s w as

### 9

negl i gentand s eeks t o be i ndemni f i ed f ori t s ow n negl i gence . T hus , thi s C our t , l i ke the tr i al
co u rt , is no t r eq u ir ed to co n side r th e issu e o f w h ethe r th e p rov isi o n s o f S ec ti o n 3 1 -5-4 1 are appl i cabl e t o t oday’s case. A s s uch, w e ar e cons tr ai ned t o af f i r m the j udgm entof

the tr i al
courtgr ant i ng I ngal l s i ndemni ty. CO NC L US I ON ¶11. T he tr i al courtcor r ect l y det erm i ned thatM i s s i s s i ppi l aw governs thi s di s put e and that C ardw el l w as an i nv i t ee. M i ssi ssi pp i C od e Secti on 31-5-41 cann ot be app l i ed to o u r ca se t oday si nce the i s s ue of f aul ti s notbef

or e thi s C our t . T hus , w e af f i r m the j udgm entof

t he Ja c k so n C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt. ¶ 1 2
. AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR AND P I ER CE , J J . , CO NCU R. GR AV E S , P . J . , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RS W I T H S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON J OI NED BY K I TCHEN S , J . ; RAN DO LPH AND C HA NDLER, J J . , J OI N I N PART. RA ND OL P H, J . , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RS W I T H S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON J OI NED BY CH AND LER, J . ; DI CK I NSON AND PI ERCE, J J . , J OI N I N PART. GR AV E S , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶13. Fi nal l y, the m aj or i ty r eac hes the r i ght r es ul t i n thi s cas e. B ut , al as , i t i s f or the w r ong
r eas on. W hi l e I agr ee thatt hi s C our tshoul d notconsi dert he appl i cabi l i ty of Sect i on 31- 5- 41
a n d th a tI n g a l l s i s e n t i t l e d t o i n d e mn i ty , I a m c o mp e l l e d t o e x p l a i n th e r e a s o n s f o rmy
a g re e m e n t. ¶ 1 4
. T h e m a

jo r it y s ta te s : “ T ra n s o c e a n s e e m in g ly h a s a d u ty to in d e m n if y In g a lls
. T

h is dut y, how eve r, ar

guabl y could be voi ded by Mis s is s i ppiCode Sect i on 31- 5- 41 t o the ex t ent thatthe i ndem ni t

y pr ovis i on i n the Shi

pyar d A gr eem ent

pr ovi des f

ori ndem ni

f i cat i on of

### 10

In g a lls fo rIn g a lls ’ o w n n eg lig e n c e .” M a j
. Op
. ¶ 1 0 ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d )
. T h e r e a r e two
re a s o n s w h y th a t c o n c lu s io n is fl a w e d
. ¶1 5. Fi r s t , as I expl ai ned i n m y di s s entt o t he or i gi na l maj or i ty o pi ni on i n thi s c a s e, T r ans ocea n w ai ved the af f i r m at i ve def

ens e of the appl i cabi l i ty of

M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 31- 5- 41. T hatdi s s ent i ng opi ni on s t at ed:

T he m aj ori ty reverses the tr i al cou rt ' s grantof i nd em nity to I ng al l s, hol di ng thatM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 31- 5- 41 i nval i dat es i ndemni ty cl aus es i n c o n s tru c t i o n c o n tr a c t s th a ti n d e mn i f y a p e r s o n f

r o m th a tp e r s o n ' s o wn negl i gence , and t hat T ra ns ocea n pr es erved the i s s ue of the appl i cabi l i ty of Sect i on 31- 5- 41 f

orcon si der at i on on appea l
. I di s agr ee thatT r ans ocea n pr es erved the i s s ue of

the appl i cabi l i ty of

Sect i on 3 1-5-41, and ther ef or e I d is s e n t. T he maj or i ty r eas ons t hatT r ans ocea n pr es erved the i s s ue f orappea l w hen, i n i t s answ ert o the thi r d- party compl ai nt , i tpl eade d: 1) I ngal l s “f ai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m o r cause o f act i on upon w hi ch r el i ef m ay be gr ant ed” a nd 2) “al l de f e ns e s t o the va l i di ty o re nf or c e a bi l i ty o f

a ny i nd e mni ty p r ov i s i ons w h ich a re a v a ilab le to itu n d e r th e . . . law s o f M iss iss ip p i. .
. . ” T h e m a jo rity al s o poi nt s outthatT r ans ocea n as s ert ed the ap pli cabi l i ty of Sect i on 31- 5- 41 i n i t s pr etr i al br i ef

. I ti s i l l ogi cal t o ar gue thatT r ans ocea n pr es erved the i s s ue of the appl i cabi l i ty of

thi s l i t t l e- know n s t atut e by i ncl udi ng i n i t s ans w erthe boi l erpl at e R ul e 12( b) ( 6) def ens e of “ f ai l ur e t o s t at e a cl ai m orcaus e of act i on u p o n w h ich re lief m a y b e g ra n ted ” a n d th e v e ry g e n e ra l p lea d in g o f a ll def ens es avai l abl e underM i s s i s s i ppi l aw t o I ngal l s ' cl ai m f ori ndemni ty. Fur therm or e, w hetherornotTr ans ocea n r ai s ed Sect i on 31- 5- 41 i n i t s pr etr i al b rie f is irre le v a n t b e c a u se T ra n so c e a n filed its p re trial b rie f six a n d o n e -h a lf years after it f

ile d its a n s w e r t o th e th ir d -p a rt y c o m p la in t. T r ans ocea n s houl d be barr ed f r om as s ert i ng the af

f i r m at i ve def

ens e of the app l i cabil i ty of S ect i on 3 1-5-41 becau se T ransocean fai l ed to t i m el y rai se the def ens e as r equi r ed by the M i s s i s s i ppi Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e. R ul e 8( c) p ro v id e s th a t, in p lea d in g to a p re c e d in g p lea d in g su c h a s a c ro ss -c laim , a p a rty sh a ll se t fo rth all aff

irm a tiv e d e fe n se s. M iss . R . C iv . P . 8 (c ). S im ilarly , R u le 12( b) pr ovi des thata l l de f ens es t o a c l ai m f

orr el i ef i n a ny pl eadi ng, i ncl udi ng a c ro ss -c laim , sh a ll b e a ss e rte d in th e re sp o n siv e p lea d in g th e re to if o n e is re q u ir e d . M is s . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (b ). See a l so Mis s . D ep't

of Hum an Serv s . v.

### 11

G u idry , 830 So. 2d 628, 634 ( M i s s . 2002) ( expl ai ni ng thatw hen a r es pons i ve pl eadi ng i s r equi r ed, an aff i rm at i ve def

ens e i s w ai ved i f

notr ai s ed by a pl eadi ng)
. T r ans ocea n f ai l ed t o r ai s e the af

f i r m at i ve def

ens e of the appl i cabi l i ty of

Sect i on 31- 5- 41 i n i t s ans w ert o the thi r d- party compl ai ntand neveramended i t s ans w erpur s uantt o R ul e 15( a) t o i ncl ude the def ens e. F N1 T her e i s n o e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d tha tTr a ns oc e a n w a s e ve n a w a r e o f t he exi s t ence of

Sect i on 31- 5- 41 ator ar ound the t i m e Tra ns ocea n w r ot e i t s ans w er to th e th ird -p a rty c o m p lain t. T ra n s o c e a n d id n o t ra ise S e c tio n 3 1 -5 -4 1 u n til i tfi l ed i t s pretri al b ri ef i n N ov em ber 200 7, si x an d o ne-hal f year s af t eri tf i l ed its a n s w e r t o th e th ir d -p a rt y c o m p la in t. FN1. Rule 15(a) provid es that a party may amend a pleading at any time b ef orea re sp on siv e p lea ding is ser ve d, or, if a p lea ding is on e to which no responsive pleading is permitted andthe action has not been placed on the trial calendar, the party may amend the pleadi ng within thirty days after i t is served. Miss. R. Civ. P. 15(a). After the respo ns iveple adingha s b een ser ve d or t hethirty -day p eri od

ha s elapsed (a s the case may be), Rule 15(a) allows the party to amend a pleadingon ly b y le av e o f t heco urt or u po n written

co ns ent of

the adverse party. Id. T h e m a jo rity c ites o n ly o n e c a se , Ho w a r dv. E sta te o f Ha rp e r ex re l. H ar per , 947 So. 2d 854 ( M i s s . 2006) , a s s uppor tf ori t s err oneous f

i ndi ng that T r ans ocea n pr es erved the i s s ue of the appl i cabi l i ty of

Sect i on 31- 5- 41 f

or consi der at i on on appea l by pl eadi ng a R ul e 12( b) ( 6) def ens e. I n How ard , re p re se n tativ e s o f th e e sta tes o f d e c e a se d n u rsin g h o m e re sid e n ts file d su it a g a i n s tth e n u r s i n g h o me , a n u r s i n g h o me a d mi n i s tr a t o r , a n d a n u r s i n g h o me lic e n s e e . How ard , 9 4 7 S o . 2 d at 85 6
. A m o n g o th e r c laim s, the p lai n ti ffs a lle g e d m e d ic a l m a lp r a c tic e , fr a u d , a n d b re a c h o f f id u c ia ry d u ty . I

d. On appea l t o thi s C our t , the nur s i ng hom e ad m i ni s tr at orand l i cens ee r ai s ed d e fe n s e s a g a in s t th e s e th re e c la im s . I d. at860- 61. T he plai nt i f f s r es ponded thatthe admi ni s tr at orand l i cens ee ha d w ai ved thes e def enses w hen t he a d m in istra to r a n d lice n se e fa iled to a ss e rt th e m in e ith e r th e ir m o tio n to d ism iss ( i. e., their origina l r ep ly p ap ers ) o r th eir pe ti ti o n for interloc u tory a p p e a l. I

d. at 86 0
. In re sp o n se to th e p lai n ti ffs' a rgu m en t reg ard ing w aive r, the How ard

C our ts t at ed: I n t he [ def

endant s ' ] m ot i on t o di s m i s s , they as s ert ed the Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t o st at e a cl ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef coul d be g ra n ted p u rs u a n t to M iss . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (b )(6 ). W e fin d th is a ss e rtio n is s u ffic ien t to p re se rv e th e iss u e [s] fo r a p p e a l.

### 12

I d. T he C our t , how ever , of f er ed abs ol ut el y no expl anat i on f orthi s f i ndi ng. N otonl y i s the How ard C our t ' s fi ndi ng re gar di ng t he i ncl us i venes s of a R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) d e fe n s e u n s u p p o rt e d , b u t in a m o re re c e n t d e c is io n , B urles on v. L athem , t hi s C our ts peci f i cal l y s t at ed thata R ul e 12( b)( 6) def ens e ca nnot po ssi bly pr eserve any and al l af fi rm at i ve defenses and

of f er ed a c om pel l i ng r eas on w hy thi s m us tbe the ca s e. B urles on v. L athem , 968 So. 2d 930, 936 F N2 ( M i s s . 2 00 7)
. I n B u rleson , the def endantf ai l ed t o as s ertthe af

f i r m at i ve d e fe n se s o f in su ffic ien c y o f p ro c e ss a n d in su ffic ien c y o f s e rv ice o f p ro c e ss in hi s i ni t i al r es pons i ve pl eadi ngs orby m ot i on s i m ul t aneous l y ther ew i th, a nd he fail ed to am en d h is an sw er p u rsu an t t o M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 1 5 (a ) t o in c lu d e th e s e d e fe n s e s . I d. T he def

endantar gued thathe had p re se rv e d th e se d e fe n se s b y inc lu d in g a c a tch -a ll R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) d e fe n se in h is in itia l a n s w e r. I

d. T he B urles on C our tdi s agr eed a nd hel d thati nt erpr et i ng R ul e 12( b) ( 6) t o pr es erve al l af f i r m at i ve def

ens es w oul d “al l ow the def endant m ore than on e bit e atthe ap ple, si nce h e cou l d p l ead a R ule 12(b)( 6) defense i n the i ni t i al r es pons i ve pl eadi ngs , w i th the i ntentof as s ert i ng otherR ul e 12 def ens es ata l at ert i m e. ” I d. M or eover , the ar gum entthata R ul e 12( b) ( 6) d e fe n se p re se rv e s a ll aff irm a tiv e d e fe n se s is ill o g ica l b e c a u se it “ fa ils to expl ai n the exi s t ence of the r emai ni ng R ul e 12( b) def ens es and other affirm ati v e d efe n ses, w h ich w o u ld b e u n n ec essa ry if a p arty n ee d o n ly as sert a R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) d e fe n se to p re se rv e a n y o b jec tio n s to a lleg a tio n s s e t fo rth in the compl ai nt . ” I

d. FN 2. T he m aj ori t y f

ai l s t o m ent i on B u r le s o n v. L a th e m in its opi ni on. Si m i l ar l y, pl eadi ng “al l def ens es t o the val i di ty orenf or cea bi l i ty of

any i ndemni ty pr ovi s i ons w hi ch ar e avai l abl e t o i tunderthe .
. . l aw s of M iss iss ip p i. .
. . ” c a n n o t b e sa id to p re se rv e a n y a n d a ll d e fe n se s a g a in st a c laim fo r in d e m n ity , fo r if it d id , the re w o u ld b e n o p u rp o se fo r a p a rty d e fe n d in g a g a in st a c laim fo r in d e m n ity to in c lu d e a n y o th e r d e fe n se s in its a n sw e r. A s s tate d a b o v e , the d e fe n d a n t u n ju stly w o u ld b e a llo w e d m u lti p le bi t es a tthe appl e, s i nce i tc oul d i ncl ude a very ge ner al de f ens e i n it s i ni t i al ans w erw i th the i nt ent i on of as s ert i ng ot herdef

ens es m onths or , as i n thi s cas e, y ea rs l ater. L as t l y, as not ed above , the f actthatT r ans ocea n r ai s ed Sect i on 31- 5- 41 in its p re trial b rie f is irre lev a n t, be c a u se T ra n so c e a n filed its p re trial b rie f in N o vem ber 200 7, si x an d o ne-hal f year s af t eri tf i l e d i t s a ns w e rt o t he th ir d -p a rt y c o m p la in t.

### 13 T her ef or e, bas ed on the l aw as w el l as l ogi c, I m us tdi s agr ee that T r ans ocea n pr es erved the i s s ue of the appl i cabi l i ty of

Sect i on 31- 5- 41 f

or cons i der at i on on appea l
. A ccor di ngl y, I di s s entand w oul d af f i r m the tr i al cou rt ' s grantof i nd em nity to I ng al l s. ¶16. T he s econd r eas on w hy thi s C our ts houl d notcons i derthe appl i cabi l i ty of Sect i on 31- 5- 41 i s thatthi s C our thas no obl i gat i on t o s ua s pont e ra ise th e d e fe n se o f th e a p p lica b ili ty of the s t atut e, nors houl d i tdo s o i n the i ns t antcas e. I n otherw or ds , thi s C our ti s not
r equi r ed t o, nors houl d i t , rul e on the i s s ue of w hetherthe i ndemni f

i cat i on agr eementi n t he Shi pyar d A gr eementi s i l l egal and voi d as ag ai ns tpubl i c pol i cy. T he al l eged i l l egal i ty at iss u e is n o t o f a s e v e re n a tu re , a n d it is u n re a so n a b le to c o n c lu d e th a t th is C o u rt h a s a d u ty t o t ake up the i s s ue su a sp o n te si m pl y becaus e i ti nvol ves a pos s i bl e publ i c- pol i cy vi ol at i on. ¶17
. T here are i nst ances w here cou rt s shou l d declar e con tract s vo i d as i l l egal and against publ i c pol i cy r egar dl es s of w hetherthe af

f i r m at i ve def

ens e of i l l egal i ty orc ontr avent i on of publ i c pol i cy i s t i m el y rai s ed by a pa r ty. Forexampl e, w her e a c ontr actcons i s t s of an
a g re e m e n t to c o m m it a fe lo n y , c o u rts sh o u ld o f c o u rse re fu se to e n fo rc e th e c o n tra c t ev e n if nei therparty t i m el y r ai s es the af f i r m at i ve def

ens e of i l l egal i ty. T hi s C ou rthas l ong dis t i ng uis hed betw een co ntr act s m alum i n se , or i nh eren tl y e v il , and con tract s m al um pr ohi bi t um , o r u n la w fu l b y v ir tu e o f s ta tu te . See, e. g. , Se y m ourv. Evans , 608 So. 2d 1141, 1145 ( M i s s . 1992) ( ci t i ng R a st v . S o rr e ll , 127 So. 2d 435, 437 ( M i s s . 1961) and G ar dnerv. R eed , 42 So. 2d 206, 208 ( M i s s . 1949) )
. W hi l e court s ge ner al l y s houl d r ef us e t o enf

or ce a ny
c o n tra c t m alum i n se , r egar dl es s of w hetherthe i s s ue of

i l l egal i ty i s t i m el y r ai s ed by any of the pa rt i es, cou rt s general l y sho uld not r efuse t o en for ce con tract s ma l u m p r o h i b i t u m as

### 14

i l l egal or againstpu bli c po l i cy u nles s the d efendan thas t i m el y rai sed t he aff i rm at i ve d efense of i l l egal i ty. ¶18
. A s no t ed, the co ntr actil l egali ty atis sue in t he inst ant cas e i s m al um pr ohi bi t um , not
m alum i n se , and nots ever e i n natur e. B utf orthe exi s t ence of S ect i on 31- 5- 41 – w hi ch
c a rv e s o u t a littl e -k n o w n e x c e p tio n to th e g e n e ra l ru le re g a rd in g in d e m n ifica tio n c o n tra c ts and makes i ti l l egal f

ora party t o a cons truct i on cont r actt o cont r actf ori ndemni f

i cat i on f r om its o w n n e g lig e n c e –itw o u ld h a v e b e e n u n q u e stio n a b ly leg a l fo r T ra n so c e a n a n d In g a lls to
e n ter in to th e in d e m n ifica tio n a g re e m e n t at iss u e in th e in sta n t c a s e . M a n y c o n tra c ts to in d e m n ify a re n e ith e r u n u su a l n o r ille g a l. F o r e x a m p le, n e a rly e v e ry c a r o w n e r e n ter s in to
a c o n tr a c t f

o r l ia b ility in s u ra n c e . ¶19. I t i s unr eas onabl e t o concl ude that thi s C our t , af t er det erm i ning t hat an af f i r m at i ve def ens e w as nott i m el y r ai s ed and thus w ai ved, has a duty t o t ake up the i s s ue anyw ay s ua
s pont e w heneve rthe i s s ue i nvol ves a pos s i bl e publ i c- pol i cy vi ol at i on. I f thatw er e the ca s e, th e n a rg u a b ly th is C o u rt w o u ld h a v e a d u ty to re s e a r c h a n d , if re le v a n t, s ua s

pont e rai se pr act i cal l y e very a f

f i r m at i ve def

ens e thatmi ghtbe a vai l abl e t o any of the part i es i n the ca s e, b e c a u se p ra c tica lly e v e ry law h a s s o m e p u b lic-p o licy ra tio n a le b e h in d it. T h is C o u rt w o u ld be obl i gat ed t o voi d contr actpr ovi s i ons noto nl y pur s uantt o Sect i on 31- 5- 41 butal s o on
o th e r p u b lic-p o licy g ro u n d s s u c h a s s tatu te o f lim itatio n s, fa ilu re o f c o n sid e rati o n , an d sta tu te of f rauds eve n w hen s uch af

f i r m at i ve def

ens es w er e not

t i m el y r ais ed by a par t

y to the act i on . E v e n if o n e w e re to a rg u e th a t th e a p p lica b ili ty o f S e c tio n 3 1 -5 -4 1 o r th e d e fe n se o f illeg a lity of contr actm or e gene r al l y i s di s t i ngui s habl e f r om af f i r m at i ve def

ens es l i ke s t atut e of

### 15

l i m i t a t i on s a nd f

a i l ur e of c on s i de r a t i on , un de rthe maj or i ty’ s ho l di ng , i tw ou l d s t i l l f ol l ow t hatcourt s w oul d have the duty t o r es ear ch and s ua s pont e r a i s e a l l p os s i bl e de f ens es of i l l egali ty (i ncludi ng l i t t l e-know n st atutes declar i ng otherw i se l egal contr act s void as agai nst publ i c pol i cy) every t i m e they ar e pr es ent ed w i th a contr actclai m . N eedl es s t o s ay, t hat
w o u ld b e a n u n re a s o n a b le b u rd e n to p la c e o n th e c o u rt s . ¶2 0. M i s s i s s i ppi cas el aw hol ds t hatar gum e nt s o f c on tr a c ti l l egal i t y ar e af f i r m at i ve d e fe n se s th a t ar e lo st if n o t tim e ly ra ise d a n d th a t th is C o u rt d o e s n o t h a v e a g e n e ra l d u ty to
r ai s e the i s s ue of

contr acti l l egal i ty su a sp o n te . I n Her t zC om m er cial

L eas ing D i vis i on v. Mor r is on , the i s s ue pr es ent ed w as “w hetherthe def endant , a l es s ee unde ran equi pm ent l eas i ng agr eement , m us taf f i r m at i vel y pl ead thatthe ac cel er at i on cl aus e [ i n the l eas i ng agr eement ] i s a pe nal ty – and thus s ubs t ant i al l y unenf or cea bl e – t o empl oy thattheory and ju d ic ia lly a v o id o b lig a tio n s o th e r w is e p ro v id e d u n d e r t h e lite ra l la n g u a g e o f t h e le a s e .” Her t z Com m er cial

L eas ing D i v. v. Mor r is on , 567 So. 2d 832 ( M i s s . 1990)
. A contr act cl aus e i s cons i der ed a pe nal ty w hen i ti s i nt ended t o puni s h the br eac hi ng party r athert han
c o m p e n s a te th e in

ju re d p a rt y . See Cont ’l

Turpe ntine & R os in Co. v. G ul f N aval S tor es Co. , 1 4 2 S o . 2 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 9 (M iss . 1 9 6 2 ) (“
. . . the d a m a g e s s tip u la te d f o r m u st b e su c h a s to amount t o compensa t i on onl y, and i f the pr i nci pl e orcompensa t i on has been l os ts i ghtof , t he
su m na m ed w il l b e tr ea ted a s a pe n alty . ”) A co n tr ac t clau se fo u n d t o co n sti tute a p e n a lty
m a y b e h e ld u n e n fo rc e a b le a s a g a in s t p u b li c p o lic y . See id . at204, 209 ( w her e the d e fe n d a n ts a rg u e d th a t a c o n tra c tu a l p ro v isio n w a s v o id as ag a in st p u b lic p o licy b e c a u se it
cons t i tut ed a pe nal ty and thi s C our trul ed i n thei rf avoron thi s i s s ue, hol di ng “Sec. 8 of the

### 16

A r t i cl es of

A s s oci at i on [i
. e. , t he contr act ] w as nota genui ne- pr e- es t i m at e of l i qui dat ed d a m a g e s, b u t w a s in fac t a m e a su re to ‘p o lice ’ an d terro riz e th e m e m b e rs s o th a t th e y w o u ld
n o t violate the a g ree m en t, an d i s disp rop o rt ion ate t o the a ctua l dam ag es.”); He rtz , 567 So. 2 d a t 8 3 7 (H a w k in s, J., d is s e n tin g ) (“ T h is c a se is a b o u t a c o n tra c t w h ich c o u ld b e v o id beca us e i ti s agai ns tpubl i c pol i cy. ”)
. T he def endantl es s ee i n Hert

z nev er r ai sed t he d efense thatthe ac cel er at i on cl aus e w as a pena l ty, butthe tr i al courtt ook up the i s s ue su a sp o n te , co n stru ing the a cc elerati o n clau se a s a p en a lty a n d thu s li m it ing the a m o u n t th e p lai n ti ff le s s o r c o u ld re c o v e r u n d e r t h e c o n tr a c t. I d . at833-34. T hi s C our tre ver s ed t he j udgm entof the tr i al court , agr eei ng w i th the pl ai nt i f f that“pen al t y i s i n the natur e of the af f i r m at i ve def ens e of ‘ i l l egal i ty’ w hi ch R ul e 8( c) , M i s s . R
. C i v. P. , r equi r ed thatM orr i s on [ i
. e. , t he def endant ] pl ead on pa i n of w ai ver . ” I

d . a t 8 3 4 , 8 3 7 . In o th e r w o rd s, th is C o u rt h e ld th a t it
w as w r ong f

orthe courtt o r ai s e the af f i r m at i ve def

ens e of penal ty su a sp o n te . ¶21. M or eover , the Hert z court s t at ed that , even w hen an i l l egal contr act , l i ke a gambl i ng contr act , i s voi d ab i ni t i o ( i
. e. , tr eat ed as nul l and voi d f r om the out s et ) , the contr act , i f s ued on, “may be s ai d s ubj ectt o the af f i r m at i ve def

ens e of i l l egal i ty w i thi n R ul e 8( c)
. ” I d . at835. In ot her w ords, even con tract s i l l egal on t heirface ar e subjectt o the af fi rm at i ve d efense pl eadi ng r equi r ementembodi ed i n R ul e 8( c) , and court s m ay choos e nott o r ai s e su a sp o n te th e ille g a lity o f s u c h c o n tr a c ts . ¶22. T he Hert

z courtgoes on t o expl ai n thatthe defense of i l l egali t y i s s i m i l art o the d e fe n se s o f fa ilu re o f c o n sid e ra tio n a n d sta tu te o f fra u d s, b o th o f w h ich in d isp u tab ly

### 17

c o n stitu te a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se s a n d b o th o f w h ich w ill n o t b e ta k e n u p b y th is C o u rt s ua sp o n te : A s d e fe n se s to a c o n tra c t a c tio n , fa ilu re o f c o n sid e ra tio n , ill e g a lity a n d sta tu te o f fr au d s are sim il ar. E ac h assu m es th e c o n tr ac t on it s fac e e n ti tl es p lai n ti ff t o pr evai l butthen r eac hes i nt o the bag of rul es pr es cr i bi ng f

or m s and l i m i t i ng the pow erof per s ons t o cont r actand pul l s one out , s ayi ng, “See, thi s contr act m ay notbe enf

or ced. ” Each f

i nds a rul e of

law ext ernal t o the contr actand br i ngs i tt o be art o ba rthe pl ai nt i f f’ s a ct i on. A s s uch, f

ai l ur e of cons i der at i on, i l l egal i ty, and s t atut e of

f r auds e ach “ cons t i tut e[ s ] an avoi dance oraf f i r m at i ve def ens e. ” The w or ds “any other ” pr ece di ng the gene r al “mat t ercons t i tut i ng a n a vo i da nc e o ra n a f

f i r mat i ve d e f

e ns e ” [ i n Rul e 8 ( c ) ] d e c l ar e t he s peci f i ca “f ai l ur e of c ons i der at i on, . . . , i l l egal i ty, . . . , [ or ] s t atut e of f r auds ” def

ens es of l i ke genr e w i th t he gener a. T he pena l ty theory the tr i al courtempl oyed i s of l i ke genr e. I tr eac hes beyond th e c o n tr ac t’ s li teral l an g u ag e into the p o sit ive law an d em p loy s a p ri n ciple ther e f ound t o avoi d H ert z’ s [ i
. e. , the pl ai nt i f f’ s ] enj oym entof

s ubs t ant i al benef i t s embe dd ed i n the contr act ’ s l anguage . T hi s i s w hati s m eantby a “m att er c o n sti tuti n g an av o idan ce o r affi rm ati v e d efe n se” w ith in R u le 8(c ). I d . at835. T her ef

or e, the Hert

z courthel d t hatt he def ens e of penal ty i s i n the natur e of an af f i r m at i ve def

ens e and thatt he t r i al cour tw as t hus w r ong t o r ai s e and rul e on the i s s ue s ua sp o n te . I

d . at836- 37. Si m i l ar l y, the appl i cabi l i ty of Sect i on 31- 5- 41 i s an af f i r m at i ve d e fe n se , an d th is C o u rt sh o u ld n o t ra ise it su a sp o n te . ¶23. A s the Fi f

th C i r cui thas not ed, the Hert z c o u rt in terp re ted R u le 8 (c ) to m e a n th a t, i f
a d e fe n d a n t fa ils to a ffirm a tiv e ly p lea d th e d e fe n se th a t a c o n tra c t is ill e g a l o r a g a in st p u b lic pol i cy, court s have a n obl i gat i on t o enf or ce the contr acteven i f the contr acti s s how n att r i al to b e a g a in s t p u b lic p o lic y . Kni ght v. Kni ght , 2 0 8 F . 3 d 5 1 4 , 5 1 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). ¶24. L as t l y, i n Ma rtin v. E sta te o f W . W . Ma rtin , this C ou rtexp l ai ned that a not e i s a contr act , and contr act s agai ns tpubl i c pol i cy ar e unenf or cea bl e, but“[ w ] her e, as her e, t he

### 18

m akerof a not e t akes the vi ew thatthe not e i s unenf orceabl e as a gai ns tpubl i c pol i cy, t he
m akerm us ts ay s o af

f i r m at i vel y by w ay of

def ens e. ” Ma rtin v. E sta te o f W .W . Ma rtin , 599 So. 2d 966, 968 ( M i s s . 1992) ( ci t i ng He rtz ). See al s o P as s T

erm ite and P es t

Contr ol , I nc.
v. W al ker , 904 So. 2d 1030, 1033-34 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng Hert z and Mar tin as s uppor tf or th e s ta te m e n t th a t a ff

ir m a tiv e d e fe n s e s m u s t b e ra is e d in a p a rt y ’s a n s w e r)
. ¶ 2 5
. In su m m a ry , b o th re a so n a n d th e c o n tro lli n g c a se law su p p o rt th e c o n c lu sio n th a t th is C o u rt sh o u ld n o t s ua s

pont e rai se t he app l i cabil i ty of S ect i on 3 1-5-41, an aff i rm at i ve d efense thatthe maj or i ty does notdi s put e the def endantf ai l ed t o pr es erve. ¶26. T he m aj or i ty r eas ons that thi s C our t s houl d not cons i der the appl i cabi l i ty of Sect i on 31- 5- 41 beca us e the part i es “s t i pul at ed thatthe i s s ue of t or tal l ocat i on of

l i abi l i ty w as not bef or e the tr i al court , and thus , notbef or e thi s C our t , ” and “ ther e i s i ns uf f i ci enti nf or m at i on in th e re c o rd fo r t h is C o u rt to d e te rm in e to w h a t e x te n t, if a n y , In g a lls w a s n e g lig e n t . . . .” M a j. O p . ¶ 10
. F ir st, i t m u st b e n o ted tha t in th e m ajority ’s origina l o p inion , th e m a jo rity d eterm ined that the a p p rop ri ate d isp o sit ion w as to rem an d this case to the tr ial co u rtfor a det erm i nat i on of

the ext entt o w hi ch I ngal l s w as negli gent . T he maj or i ty now f i nds t hat

“ in su ffic ien t” in fo rm a tio n in th e re c o rd re g a rd in g fa u lt is a b a sis fo r a ffirm in g th e trial c o u rt. I ti s uns ound r eas oni ng w hen a c our tf i nds thata r ecor d i s “ i ns uf f i ci ent ” t o de ci de a r el evant i s s ue, and t hen use s t he f i ndi ng of an “i ns uf

f i ci ent ” r ecor d as a bas i s f orr eac hi ng a dec i s i on. T hi s i s a dange r ous pr ece dent
. I tal l ow s thata party coul d be r es pons i bl e f oran “i ns uf f i ci ent ” r ecor d and t hen be r ew ar ded f orthe “i ns uf

f i ci ency” w i th a f

avor abl e rul i ng on
a p p e a l.

### 19

¶27. Second, i t i s i l l ogi cal t o a r gue thatthe r ecor d i s de f i ci ent on a m att er that the part i es h a v e stip u late d is n o t an iss u e . A t th e trial c o u rt h e a rin g , itw a s m a d e c lea r th a t:

. . . by s t i pul at i on betw een the part i es , ther e i s no i s s ue betw een [ sic ] the C o u rt ab ou tt orta l l oc a t i on o f l i a bi l i ty he r e . Thi s i s s tr i c t l y a c a s e o f cont r act a llo c a tio n . . . . B a sic a lly , if th e re is n o c o n tra c t in d e m n ity o r in su ra n c e th a t is ow ed, the pa r t i es s t and by thei rs ett l ementw i th M r . C ar dw el l [ the i nj ur ed w o rk e r]. O th e rw ise , the o n ly is s u e to b e re so lv e d is w h e th e r b y c o n tra c t, T ra n s o c e a n is o b lig a te d to p ic k u p th e s e ttle m e n t th a t w a s p a id b y In g a lls
. ¶2 8
. In o ther w o rds, at th e ti m e the p arti es su b m itted th e c a se to the tri al j u d g e fo r a deci s i on, t he par t i es al r eady ha d s t i pul at ed thatthei rf aul tw as cons i s t entw i th the s ett l ement fun d s p aid to C ard w e ll. A c c o rd ing ly, th e p arti es d id n o t argu e fa u ltd u ri n g the tri al co u rt pr ocee di ng oron appea l , and i tl ogi cal l y fol l ow s t hatt her e w oul d be no evi dence r egar di ng f aul t( othert han the s t i pul at i on) i n the r ecor d. T hus , a f i ndi ng unf

avor abl e t o T r ans ocea n cannotr at i onal l y be bas ed on t he f actthat“nei therparty has ar gued f aul t . ” M aj
. O p. ¶ 10. N e ith e r p a rty a rg u e d fa u lt at th e trial o r a p p e a l lev e l (n o r w o u ld it b e se n sib le f o r th e m to
ar gue f aul ton a r emand) be caus e they al r eady s t i pul at ed t o the thei rr es pect i ve amount s of fa u lt. ¶ 2 9
. T h e re fo re , w h ile I a g re e w ith th e m a jo rity th a t th is C o u rt is n o t re q u ire d to , n o r sh o u ld i t , cons i derthe appl i cabi l i ty of Sect i on 31- 5- 41, I di s agr ee w i th the maj or i ty’ s r at i onal e f or th is c o n c lu sio n . T h e p ro p e r ra tio n a le f o r th is c o n c lu sio n is th a t: 1 ) T ra n so c e a n fa iled to pr es erve the i s s ue of

the appl i cabi l i ty of

Sec t i on 31- 5- 41 f

orc ons i der at i on on appea l , a nd 2) th is C o u rt sh o u ld n o t s ua s pont e r ai s e t he st atut e’ s appl i cabi l i ty. I ti s i m pr operand i l l ogi cal t o bas e the conc l us i on thatthi s C our ti s notr equi r ed t o c ons i derSec t i on 31- 5- 41 on the f act

### 20

th a t th e p a rties stip u late d to th e iss u e o f to rt a llo c a tio n a n d th e re fo re d id n o t ar g u e fa u lt. A cc o rdin g ly, I m u st spe ciall y co n cu r. K I T C H E N S , J ., J O I N S T H I S O P I N I O N . R A N D O L P H A N D C H A N D L E R , J J ., J OI N THI S OPI NI ON I N PART. RA ND OL P H, J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶30. I concur w i th Pr es i di ng J us t i ce C ar l s on i n af f i r m i ng the i ns i ght f

ul and w el l
- r eas oned
o p inion o f th e tri al j u d g e. A t th e sa m e ti m e, I ag ree w ith P art I o f P residing Ju sti ce G rav es’s
s peci al l y concurr i ng opi ni on r egar ding Tra ns ocea n’ s unt i m el y r ai s i ng of an af f i r m at i ve d e fe n s e b a s e d o n M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 3 1 -5 -4 1
. See M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 31- 5- 41 (R ev . 2 0 0 8 ). C H A N D L E R , J ., J O I N S T H I S O P I N I O N . D I C K I N S O N A N D P I E R C E , J J ., J OI N THI S OPI NI ON I N PART.