Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R . 47 .5, th e court has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d and is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. The parti es’ proper name s areTurn er I ndu stries Group LL C and Exxo n MobilC orp. 1 Wewill refe r to Turn er I n du stri es Grou p LL Can d it s p re de ce ssor, Nich ol s C on structio nC o. , coll ectivelyas “Turner .” We will refer to E xxon MobilC orp. and its pr edece ssor, th e Humb le Oil & R ef

inin gC om pany , coll ectivelya s “ E xxon .” 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30557

EX X ON MOBI L C OR P OR AT I ON P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. TURNER I NDU S TR I ES GROUP L LC D efen da n t- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he M i ddl e D i s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana U SD C N o. 3: 07- C V

- 967

B ef ore JO L L Y , D AV IS, an d D eM O S S , C i rcui tJu dg es . E
. G R A D YJO L L Y , C i rcui tJu dg e: * Thi s a ppe ali s f

r o m t he di s m i s s alo f a de c l ar at o r y- j udg m e nta c t i o n. T u rn er, th e a p p ell ee , w a s an on -si te con tractor f or E xx on , the ap p ell a n t. 1 T u rner’ s cu rrent an d f orm er em pl oyees sued E xxon i n L ou i si an a st ate c ou rtf or a sb estos -rel a ted i nj u ri es. T u rn er a n d E xx on h a d a d efen se-an d -i n d em n i ty United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 31, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30557

2 a g r e e m e n t, w h ic h , in th is fe d e r a l d e c la r a to r ya c tio n , E x x o n s e e k s to cla r ify

. A
m a gistrate jud ge reco m m en d ed dism i ssing the de cl a ra tory action u n d er F ed eral R ul e o f C i vi l Proc edur e 12(b) ( 6) or gr ant i ng s um m ar y j udgm entunder Feder al Rul e o f Ci vi lPr o c e dur e 5 6. The di s t r i c tco ur tappr o ve d t he r e c o m m e nda t i o n a nd
a d o p te d th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’ s re p o r t a s its o p in io n . O n ap pea l , E xxon rai ses f ou r argu m en t s: ( 1) t h e di sm i ssalw as a ri pen ess determ i n ati on , an d h en ce our st an da rd of revi ew i s de no vo ; ( 2) t he di sm i ss al
w as err on eou s because the decl arator y act i on i s ri pe; ( 3) t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed in s o fa ra s it r e lie d o n th e L o u is ia n a O ilfie ld A n ti-I n d e m n ity A c t ( “ L O A I A ” ) in determ i n i n g t h at t h e act i on w as prem aturel y brou gh t ; an d ( 4) i f t h e act i on i s n ot ri pe, t h e d ism i ssalshou l d h ave been un der F ederalR u l e of C i vi lP rocedure 1 2 (b )(1 ). W e hol d t hat t he di st r i c t c our t di sm i ss ed t hi s ac t i on und eri ts d is c r e tio n a r ya u th o r ity a c c o r d e d b y2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 0 1
. W e th e r e fo r e re v ie w o n ly f o r ab us e o f di s c r e t i o n, and w e ho l d t hat t he di s m i s s al w as no t an abu se of di s c r e t i o n. Fur t he r m o r e , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s r e fe r e nc e s t o t he LO AI A d o not
c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s ib l e e r r o r . B e c a u s e w e f i n d n o r e v e r s ib l e e r r o r , w e a f f i r m. I. E xxon operates a chem i calpl an tan d oi lref i n ery i n B aton R ou ge, Loui s i ana . Tur ne rpr o vi de d c o ns t r uc t i on a nd m ai nt e nanc e s e r vi c e s a tt he fac i l i t y unde ra b l ank e tc o s t
- pl u s- w ork c o nt r ac t
. The c o nt r ac t , a s a m e nde d, pr o vi de d t hatTur ne rm us tde fe nd a nd i nde m ni f y Exxo n: fr o m a ll cla im s , fo rinju r i e s t o o rd e a th o f a n ya n d a ll per so ns, . . . ar i si ng outof ori n co nnect i on w i th orby rea son of w ork do n e b y [T u rn er] .
. . u n d er th i s con tract, exp ress l y excepti n g cl ai m s, f or i nj u ri es or d eath cau sed b yth e s o le n e g lig e n c e o f [E x x o n ] . .
. . E i gh t y- n i n e of T u rner’ s current or f orm er em pl oyees h av e a sser t ed asbestos

- rel ated perso n a l-i nj u ry cl ai m s agai n stE xxon ( as w el las ot h erN o. 08- 30557

3 com pa n i es, som et i m es i n cl u di n g T u rner) i n L ou i sian a s ta t e court
. E xxon de m and e d d e fe ns e a nd i nde m ni t y unde rt he bl ank e tco nt r ac t
. Turn e rde c l i ne d,
an d E xxon f

i l ed thi s decl arator y act i on t o cl ari f y i t s c on t ract u alri gh t s. T u rner m oved t o di sm i ss t h e act i on u n der F ederalR u l e of C i vi lP rocedure 1 2 (b )(6 ) o r , a lte r n a tiv e ly , fo rs u m m a r yju d g m e n t u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P roce d u re 56
. It a rg u ed th a t th e d eclara tory action i s “pre m a tu re, a s i n d em n i ty
o bl i ga t i o ns a r e no tj ust i ci able b e f o r e a r e s o l ut i o n o f

t he m ai n de m and

. ” The act i on i s prem ature an d n on - j u st i ci able, T u rner ex pl ai n ed, becau se t h e bl an ket
c o n tr a c t e x e m p ts T u r n e rfr o m d e fe n d in go rin d e m n ify in gE x x o n fo rE x x o n ’ s s o le
n egl i gen ce. E xxon ’ s s ol e neg l i genc e i n c aus i ng asbestos

- rel ated i nj u ri es r equ i res a fact u al , case- by-c ase deter m i n ati on . U n der L ou i si an a l aw , t h i s det erm i n ati on can n ot be m ad e u n t i l t h e concl u si on of t ri al on t h e m eri t s. T u rne r c o n cl u ded th a t t h e d e c la r a to r ya c tio n w ill n o t b e “r ip e o rju s tic ia b le ” u n til t h e p e r s o n a linju r ytr ia ls e n d

. T u rner al so argued on t h e act i on ’ s m eri t s, assert i n g st atutor y perem pti on a s a n a ffir m a tiv e d e fe n s e to a n yco n tr a c tu a l d u t y o f d e fe n s e o rin d e m n ity it
m ig h t o th e r w is e o w e to E x x o n . E xxon res pon ded t h at the act i on is j u st i ci able an d that t h e di st ri ctcourt shou l d exerci se i t s di scr et i on ary decl arator y- j u dg m en tj u ri sdi ct i on . Th e act i on i s j ust i c i abl e, E xxo n co nt ended, f orthr ee reas ons . Fi r st , tr i alon t he m er i t s has
e n d e d in a t le a s t fo u ro f th e u n d e r ly in g p e r s o n a l-inju r y la w s u its

. S e c o n d , th is
cou rt ha s ru l ed tha t a d eclara tory action reg a rd i n g d efen se-an d -i n d em n i ty du t i es is ju stic i able “ desp i t e t h e factt h at t h e un derl yi n g st ate c ou rtsui tha [ s]
n ot y et rea ch ed f

i n a lj u d gm en t. ” A m . S t ate s I n s. Co. v. B ailey , 133 F. 3d 363, 368 ( 5th C i r. 199 8)

. Th i rd, T u rner presented af f i rm ati v e defen ses t h at af fect T u r n e r ’ s d u tie s a c r o s s a ll o f th e u n d e r ly in gp e r s o n a l-inju r yla w s u its

.N o. 08- 30557

4 E xx on con ten d ed tha t t h e d i stri ct cou rt sh ou l d ex ercise i ts discreti on to h ear t h e decl arator y act i on becau se doi n g so w ou l d l ow er t h e parti es’l i t i gati on cost s, conserve j u di ci alres ou rces , an d av oi d i n consi st en trul i n gs. Am a g i st rat e j u dg e rec om m en ded di sm i ssi n g t h e act i on . Sh e expl ai n ed t hatt he D e c l ar at o r y Jud gm e ntAc t“be s t o w s a c ho i c e upon t he di s t r i c tco ur t , a nd t he de c i s i o n o f

w he t he ro r no t t o gr ant a pa r t y’ s r e que s t f o rde c l ar at o r y j udg m e nt is l eft to the distri ct cou rt’ s sou n d discretion

. ” Exx o n Mo bi l Cor p. v. Tu rner I nd us . Gr o up LLC , N o. 0 7 -96 7 -C -M 2 , at 2 (M

. D
. L a . M a r. 28 , 20 0 8 ) (m a gistrate j udge’ s r epo r tan d rec om m endat i on)

. Sh e r ec om m ended ag ai nstex er c i si ng t hat di s c r e t i o n b e c aus e : ( 1) Exx o n ’ s r i ghtt o de fe ns e a nd i nde m ni t y de pe nds o n a c ons t r uct i on o f

L oui si ana l aw , w hi c h Loui si ana st at e co urt s c an pro vi de j ustas
w e l la s a fe d e r a lc o u r t ; ( 2 ) E x x o n mi g h tb e u s i n gt h e d e c l a r a t o r ya c t i o n t o f o r u msh op ; an d ( 3 ) th e d eclara tory action w a s “pre m a tu re”:

T h i s C ou rtcan n otresol ve t h e i n dem n i f i cat i on / defense c o s ti s s u e a tt h i s t i me b e c a u s e t h e L o u i s i a n a S u p r e me C o u r t ha s h eld th a t, u n d er th e L ou i sian a O i l fi e ld I n d e m n if

ic a t io n A c t(“ L O A I A ” ), a n in d e m n it o r ’s ( T u rner’ s) obl i gati on f or i n dem n i f

i cat i on /costof defense “cannotbe det er m i ned unt i lt her e has be en a j udi c i al f i ndi ng t hatt he i nde m ni t e e ( Exxo n) i s l i ab l e o rt hatt he c har ge s a ga i ns ti ta re b as e l e s s . ” The Lo ui s i ana S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s f u r t h e rh e ld th a t, w h e th e ra n o il c o m pa ny/i nde m ni t e e i s f r e e f r o m faul ta nd t hus o ut s i de t he s c o pe o f

t he Ac tc an o nl y be de t e r m i ne d af t e ra t r i al o n th e m er its
. Si nc e t hi s Cour tc anno tde t e r m i ne l i ab i l i t y o n t he und e r l yi ng c l ai m s a ga i ns tExx o n a nd Tur ne ra nd t ho s e c l ai m s hav e no t ye tr e ac he d j udg m e nt in th e s ta te co u r ts , it is p r e m a tu r e to re q u e s t t h a t t h is Cour tr e s o l ve t he i nde m ni f i c at i o n i s s ue , a nd a ny deci si on by the C ou rtat t h i s j u n ct u re w ou l d n ot c o m p le te lyre s o lv e th a t is s u e . I d. at3- 4 ( c i t at i ons and f oo t not es om i t t ed) ( quot i ng Meloy v. Con oco, I n c. , 504 S o .2d 8 3 3 , 8 3 9 (L a . 1 9 8 7 )).N o. 08- 30557

The Declar atory Judgment Act, in pertin ent part, provides that: 2 Ina case of actual c ontroversywithin its j uri sdictio n . . . any court of the Unit ed S tates, upont hef ilingof an appropriate pl ea din g , maydeclareth e ri ghts an d oth er l egal relation s of any interested partyseekingsuch declaration, wheth er or not further reli ef i s or coul d be sought. Any such declaration shall h ave th e force and effect of afin al ju dgment ordecree and shall b e reviewab le as such. 2 8U .S .C

. § 2 2 0 1 (a) (e mp h a si s a dd ed). 5 O v e rE x x o n ’s o b je c t io n , t h e d is t r ict co u r t : a p p r o v e d th e m a g is t r a t e ju d g e ’s report a n d re co m m e n d a tion , g ra n te d the R u l e 12(b) ( 6) /R u l e 56 m ot i on , di sm i ssed th e a cti on w i th ou t prej u d i ce, a n d ad op ted th e rep ort an d reco m m en d a ti on as it s opi n i on . T h e d i st ri ctcou rtex pl ai n ed i n so rul i n g t h at t h e act i on w as “ prem ature bec ause Tu r ner ’ s obl i gat i on t o i ndem ni f y and provi de co stof defens e c annotbe de t e r m i ne d un t i lt he r e ha s b e e n a j udi c i alfi ndi ng i n s t at e c o ur ta s t o t he l i a b i l i ty, i f a n y, of

plain ti ff, E xx on M ob i lC orp ora ti on . ” Ex x o n t i m e l ya p p e a l e d

. W e h a v e a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 291. II. W e f i rstask w h et h er the di st ri ctcou rtd i sm i ssed the acti on f or r eason s of
no n- j us t i c i ab i l i t y o rforr e as o ns b as e d o n t he di s c r e t i o n a c c o r de d b y t he D e c l ar at o r y Jud gm e ntAc t , 28 U
. S. C. § 2 20 1. The a ns w e rde t e r m i ne s o ur 2
s ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w . S ee A m . S t ate s I n s. Co. v. B ailey , 133 F
. 3d 363 , 368 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) (“W e re v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n tha t t h ere e x is te d a ju s tic ia b le controver sy de n ovo. Th e deci si on of a di st ri ctcourtt o exerci se i t s decl arator y ju d g m e n t ju risd iction is re v iew e d for a b u se of d iscr e tion .” (cita tion om itted )). W e r e a d t he di s m i s s a lor d e rt o be ba s e d on t he ex e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n. To be sure, the m agis t rat e j u dg e a n d t h e d i st ri ctj u dg e w rot e t h at t h e decl arator y ac t i o n i s “ pr e m at ur e , ” w hi c h i s a t e r m t hatT ur ne ruse d w he n ar gui ng t hatt heN o. 08- 30557

Furth ermore , th e actionis ripe. A declaratory action is ju sticiable even if it presents 3 so mei ssu esth at af

ed er al co urtc a nn otyeta dj u dicate
. See Kunkel v. C ont inen tal Cas. Co. , 86 6 F.2 d 12 69, 127 4 (1 0thC ir. 1 989) (noting th at declaratory reli ef need not “entirely dispose of the matter.
. . . Further n ecessary and proper relief ba sed upon factu al dispute s not yet re so lvedmay b e so u ght at a later ti me .”). He re , trial onth e me ritsh a s c onclu de d inat le a st four of th e underlyingstat e-court l awsuits; and Turnerh as raised affirmative defenses (statutoryper emptionand a mbiguityof contract) that, if successful, would applyglob ally to 6 d eclara tory action i s n ot ri p e. T h e j u d ge s’u sa ge of “pre m a tu r e ” a l so su gg ests
n on - j u st i ci abil i t y: Th e m agis t rat e j u dg e w rot e t h at t h e act i on i s prem ature becau se t h e federalcourtcoul d n otyetcom pl et el y resolve w h et h er Tu rner ow es E x x o n d e fe n s e a n d in d e m n ity

. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t w r o te th a t t h e a c tio n is

“ prem ature becau se Tu rner’ s obl i gati on t o i n dem n i f y an d p rovi de costof defense
ca n n ot be de term i n ed u n ti lthe re h a s be en a jud i ci a lf i n d i n g in state cou rt as to th e li a b i l i ty, i f a n y, of plain ti ff, E xx on M ob i lC orp ora ti on . ” N e v e r th e le s s , o u rfu r th e rp r o b in go f th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’ s a n a ly s is
u n m a s k s “p r e m a tu r e ” t o m e a n s o m e th in gd iffe r e n t fr o m ju r is d ic tio n a lly“r ip e .” T h e m agis t rat e j u dg e b egan the rel evan ta n al ysi s by n ot i n g t h at t h e D ecl arator y Ju dg m en tA ct“bestow s a c h oi ce upon t h e di st ri ctcourt , an d the deci si on of
w he t he ro rnott o gr anta par t y’ s re que s tfo rdec l ar at o r y j udg m e nti s l e f tt o t he d i stri ct cou rt’ s sou n d discretion

. ” T h e m a gistrate jud ge n ex t recog n i ze d tha t “ a di st ri ctcourt
. . . m u st provi de an expl an ati on f or i t s act i on s, ” an d then f ol l ow ed
w i t h t h i s c i rcui t ’ s c ri t eri a f or deci di ng w h et h er t o exerci se t h e court ’ s decl arator y j udg m e ntj ur i s di c t i o n. As s um m ar i z e d sup raPartI , the m a gis t r at e j udge
a p p l i ed the se criteri a an d con cl u d ed “t h a t i t i s ap p rop ri a te f or [t h e d i stri ct cou rt] t o exerci se i t s di scr et i on an d d i sm i ss t h i s m att er. ” T h e di st ri ctcourtapp roved t h e m a g is t r a t e ju d g e ’s r e p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a t io n a n d a d o p t e d it a s th e c o u r t ’s opi n i on . N ei t h er the m agis t rat e j u dg e n or the di st ri ctj u dg e m en t i on ed ri pen ess or, m ore general l y, j u st i ci abil i t y w h en ref erri n g t o “ prem aturi t y. ” Th i s act i on
w as n ot di sm i ssed on grou n ds of j u st i ci abil i t y, bu ti n st ead w as di sm i ssed un der th e d i scre ti on tha t t h e D eclara tory J u d gm en t A ct acco rd s to the distri ct cou rt. 3N o. 08- 30557

it s d ef en se -an d- in de mnityduti esari sin gf ro m anyof th e st ate -c ourtl awsuit s. Bec ausethis actionis ripe, we do not consi d erwhether the action, if unripe, shoul d h ave b ee ndis mi sse d u n de r F ed er al Ruleof C ivilPro ce dure1 2 (b)( 1 ). 7 III. W e tu r n to w h e th e rth e a c tio n ’ s d is m is s a l w a s a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . A d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is c r e tio n in ch o o s in gw h e th e rto h e a r a d e c la r a to r ya c tio n is “bro a d

. ” Tor c h, I

nc . v . LeBl anc , 947 F
. 2d 193 , 194 ( 5th C i r. 199 1). A d istr i ct
cou rt:
m ayc o ns i de ra v ar i e t y o f fac t o r s i n de t e r m i ni ng w h et h er t o deci de a d ecl arator y j u dg m en tsui t
. For e x a m p le , d e c la r a to r yju d g m e n t r e lie f m a yb e d e n ie d [i] becau se of

a pen di n g st ate c ou rtproceedi n g i n w h i ch t he m at t er s i n c ont r ove r sy bet w ee n t he par t i es m ay be f ul l y l i t i ga t e d, [ i i ] b e c aus e t he de c l ar at o r y c o m pl ai nt w as fi l e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f a n o t h e rs u i ta n d i s b e i ng u sed f or t h e pu rpose of

f orum shop pi n g, [ i i i ] b ecau se of p o s s ib le in e q u itie s in p e r m itt in gth e p la in tiff to g a in preceden ce i n tim e an d f orum or [ i v] becau se of in c o n v e n ie n c e to th e p a r tie s o rth e w itn e s s e s . I d. ( quot i ng R o w a n C o mp a n ies , In c. v. G riffin , 8 7 6 F .2d 2 6 , 2 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). H ere, t h e m agis t rat e ju d g e a ssi gn ed the f ol l ow i n g t h ree r eason s f or di sm i ssi n g t h e act i on . Fir st , t h e un derl y in g p e rson al

- i nj u ry l aw sui t s w ere pe ndi ng i n Lo ui s i ana stat e co ur t , w hi c h “ o f fe r [ s ] a f

o r um i n whi c h t he in d e m n ific a tio n /d e fe n s e co s t is s u e ca n b e f u llylit ig a te d ” a n d w h ic h “c a n a p p ly Loui si ana c ont r ac tl aw ju st a s w el las t hi s C our t
. ” Sec ond, E xxo n m ay have i ni t i at e d t he de c l ar at o r y ac t i o n t o f o r um - shop. Thi r d, c o ns i de r i ng t he de c l ar at o r y ac t i o n’ s pr i m ar y que s t i on— w he t he rTur ne rm us tde fe nd a nd i n d em n i fy E xx on f

rom the state-cou rt l a w su i ts— w a s “pre m a tu re.” T h e s e c o n s id e r a tio n s d o n o t a lig n p e r fe c tly w ith th e fa c to r s m e n tio n e d in T orch

. Th e T

orch fact ors, how ever, are i l l u st rat i ve an d n on - exh au st i ve. W e l ook al so t o t h e f

ol l ow i n g consi derati on s here: U n der L ou i si an a la w , q u est i on s ofN o. 08- 30557

E xxon’s argument th at American States I nsu rance Co. v. Baileycom man dso th erwi se 4 is without merit. This court decided Baileyun de r T exa s l aw, n otLouis ian al aw. See13 3 F .3d 3 6 3at 3 6 9(“I nthisdiver sityc a se , T exa s rule s of co ntr actinterp retationc ontrol .”). 8 c o n tr a c tu a l d e fe n s e a n d in d e m n ity t h a t d e p e n d o n a co n tr a c tu a l p a r ty ’ s fa u lt

“ can n otbe deter m i n ed u n t i lt h ere has been a j u di ci al f i n di n g t h at t h e [ pu t ative] i n d em n i tee is l i a b l e o r t h a t th e ch a rg es a ga i n st i t w ere ba seless.” Me l oy v. Con oco, In c. , 5 04 So

. 2d 8 33 , 8 39 ( La. 1 98 7)

. Thi s de t e r m i nat i o n c an be m ad e on l y “a ft er tri a lon the m erits. ” I d. T r ia l o n th e m e r its h a s co n c lu d e d in o n ly 4 abou tf ou r of t h e T u rner em pl oyees’st ate- court l aw sui t s ag ai n stE xxon . Som e of t h e d ecl ar at or y ac ti on ’ s i ssu es, w h i ch i n cl u d e T u rn er’ s d efen se-an d -i n d em n i ty d u tie s ar i sing f

rom pe n d i n g sta te-cou rt l a w su i ts, the refore can n ot ye t be fu l ly
a n d fin a llyd e c id e d

. The s i gni f

i c ant num be r o f pe ndi ng l awsui t s , al o ng w i t h t he o t he rr e as o ns provi ded , suf

f i ci en t l y sup ports the di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on t o di sm i ss t h e act i on a s p r e m a tu r e . T h e d is m is s a l w a s n o t a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . I V. E x x o n ’s fi n a l c o n t e n t io n c o n c e r n s th e r e p o r ta n d r e c o m m e n d a t io n ’s
r ef er enc es t o t he LO A I A

. The m agi st r at e j udge w r ot e i n co ncl uso r y fas hi on t hat t h e “ ap pl i cabl e L ou i si an a l aw t o t h e i ssue at bar i s t h e L O A IA

. ” Sh e al so i m p l i e d t hatt he Lo ui s i ana Supr e m e Cour t ’ s de c i s i o n i n Meloy reaches onl y t h ose c a s e s in w h ic h th e L O A IA a p p lie s :

T h i s C ou rtcan n otresol ve t h e i n dem n i f i cat i on / defense c o s ti s s u e a tt h i s t i me b e c a u s e t h e L o u i s i a n a S u p r e me C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t, u n d er th e L o u isia n a O ilfield In d em n if

icati on A ct (“

L OA IA ”) , a n in d e m n it o r ’s ( T u rner’ s) ob l i gati on fori n dem n i f i cat i on /costof

defen se “ c annotbe det er m i ne d unt i lt her e has be en a j udi c i al f i ndi ng t hatt he i nde m ni t e e ( Exxo n) i s l i ab l e ort hatt he c har ge s a ga i ns ti ta r e b as e l e s s . ” The Loui s i ana S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s fu r th e r h e ld th a t, w h e th e ra n o il c o m pa ny/i nde m ni t e e i s f r e e f r o m faul ta nd t hus o ut s i deN o. 08- 30557

9 t he s c o pe o f

t he Ac tc an o nl y be de t e r m i ne d af t e ra t r i al o n th e m er its
. Exx o n Mo b i lCo r

p . v . Tu r ne rI

nd us . Gr o up LLC , No
. 0 7

- 9 6 7

- C- M 2 , a t3

- 4 (M
. D. La. M ar . 2 8, 2 00 8) ( m ag i s t r at e j udg e ’ s r e po r ta nd r e c o m m e ndat i on ) ( quo t i ng Meloy , 5 0 4 S o .2d a t 8 3 9 ) (first e m p h a sis a d d e d ). E xxon contends that t h e L O A IAdoes not app l y h ere: E xxon ’ s bl an ket
con tract w ith T u rn er w a s an ag ree m en t f or T u rn er to p rov i d e se rv i ces a t a ch em i ca lp l a n t a n d o i lre fi n ery , a n d L ou i sian a co u rts h a ve h eld th a t t h e L O A IA d o e s n o t a p p lyt o a g r e e m e n ts t o p e r fo r m s e r v ic e s a t a n o il re fin e r y . S ee G riffin
v. T enn eco O i lCo. , 5 19 So

. 2d 1 19 4, 1 19 6 ( La. App. 4 Ci r . 1 98 8) (ho l di ng t hatt he L O A IAdoes n ota pp l y t o a n agreem en tt o perf orm ser vi ces at a r ef

i n ery becau se

“ [ t ] he Le gi s l at ur e w as o bv i o us l y c o nc e r ne d a bo utw e l l s a nd d r i l l i ng, no ta bo ut pi pe l i ne t r ans po r t at i o n o rr e f i ni ng o f o i l , a nd t hi s c o n cern is ref l e c t e d i n t he
s ta tu te ”). W e concl u de that, ir respect i ve of w h et h er the L O A IAapp l i es, t h e report
a n d r e c o m m e n d a tio n ’ s re fe r e n c e s to th e L O A IA d o n o t c o n s tit u te re v e r s ib le
e r r o r . As w e ha ve de s c r ibe d, Lo ui s i ana q ue s t i o ns o f c o nt r ac t ualde fe ns e a nd i n dem n i t y t h at depen d on one contract u alparty’ s fa u l tcann otbe deter m i n ed
u n til t h e u n d e r ly in gla w s u it’s tr ia l o n th e m e r its co n c lu d e s th e fa u lt is s u e s . S ee Meloy , 5 0 4 S o .2 d a t 8 3 9
. T h is r u le a p p lie s b e y o n d th e c o n te x t of th e L O A IA

. S ee S u ir e v . L afay e tt e C ity -Pa r i s h Co n s o l. G o v ’t , 907 So. 2d 37, 51 (La. 2005) ( appl yi ng Meloy t o a def ens e- and- i ndem ni t y c ont r ac t ualpr ovi si on t hat w as at is s u e in a c o n s t r u c t io n -t o r tla w s u it ). T h e r e p o r ta n d r e c o m m e n d a t io n ’s assert i on s abou tt h e L O A IAt h us a r e s ur pl u sage, an d w e f i n d n o revers ibl e err or. V. F o rth e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , th e d is m is s a l o f th is d e c la r a to r ya c tio n is AF F I RMED.