T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e J os e phi ne S t a t on T uc ke r , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge ** f orthe C e ntr a l D i s tr i c tof C a l i f orni a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L I B E R T Y M U T U A L I N S U R A N C E C O ., P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. C O N T I N E N T A L R E S O U R C E S , I N C ., D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 35687 D . C. N o . 1 : 1 0 - c v - 0 0 0 3 5 - RFC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na R i c ha r d F . C e bul l , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r8, 2012

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B ef ore: W . F L E T C H E R and F IS H E R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and T U C K E R , D i stri ct Judg e. ** 

# FI LED DE C 18 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSP age 2 of 4

L i berty M utual Insura nce C om pany (“ L i berty M utual ”) appeal s the di stri ct court ’ s dec i si on grant i ng sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of C on t i nent al R es ou rc es , Inc. ( “ C ont i ne nt a l ” ) a nd de c l a r i ng tha tL i be r ty M utua l ha s a duty t o pr ot e c t , de f e nd, a nd in d e m n if y C o n tin e n ta l a s a n a d d itio n a l in s u r e d a g a in s t aw r o n g f u l d e a th c la im br oughti n M ont a na s t a t e c ourtby a n e m pl oy e e of L i be r ty M utua l ’ s i ns ur e d, P io n e e rD r illin g S e rv ic e s ( “P io n e e r ” ) . L ib e r ty M u tu a l a ls o ap p e a ls th e d e n ia l o f its c r o s s - m o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. W e a f f irm . We r e v i e w de nov o th e g r a n t o rd e n ia l o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. P ad f i eld v. A IG L i f e I ns . C o. , 2 9 0 F . 3 d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 4 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . We a l s o r e v i e w de no vo the i ns ur a nc e pol i c y a nd the unde r l y i ng c ontr a c tbe tw e e n P i one e ra nd C ont i ne nt a l , a nd w e ap p ly M o n ta n a la w to th e s u b s ta n tiv e is s u e s o f th e c a s e . See Fed. Ins. C o. v. Sca rsel la B ro s. , 931 F . 2d 599, 602 (9th C i r. 19 91 ); A c e v e s v . A l l s tate I ns . C o. , 68 F .3 d 1 1 6 0 , 1 1 6 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . A lth o u g h M o n ta n a ’s W o rk e r s ’ C o m p e n s a tio n A c t ( th e “A c t” ) p r o h ib its i nd em ni ty a gree m ent s by e m pl oyer s, w e c on cl ud e thati tdo es no tproh i bi tan e m pl oy e r ’ s a gr e e m e ntt o pr ovi de l i abi l i ty i ns ur a nc e tha tw i l l pr ot e c t , de f e nd, a nd in d e m n if y a th ir d p a rty . C o m

p a re R ais l e rv . B ur l i ngton N . R . R . C o. , 717 P . 2d 535, 54 4 (M on t . 19 85 ) ( ho l di ng thatthe A ctbars enforce m entof expres s c on tra ctual in d e m n ity b y a th ir d p a r ty a g a in s t a n e m p lo y e r ) , w ith U n ite d N a t’ l I n s . C o . v . S t.P age 3 of 4

P aul F i r e & M

ar i ne I ns . C o. , 214 P . 3d 1260, 1266- 67, 1269 ( M ont . 2009) ( e nf or c i ng a n i ns ur a nc e pol i c y i nc orpor a t i ng a c ontr a c tua l i nde m ni ty obl i ga t i on betw ee n a subcon tra ct or and a contra ct or thatw ou l d b e unenforceabl e a s adi re ct i nd em ni ty obl i gat i on un der the M on t ana S ca ff ol di ng A ct ). A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ct c our tc orr e c t l y c onc l ude d tha tP i one e r ’ s a gr e e m e ntt o i ns ur e C ont i ne nt a l i s not i n v al i d at ed b y th e A ct , an d th e w ro n g fu l d eath cl ai m i s co v ered b y th e p o l i cy. L ib e r ty M u tu a l f

u r th e rc o n te n d s th a t P io n e e rd id n o t c le a r ly a g r e e to in d e m n if y C o n tin e n ta l f

o rC o n tin e n ta l’s n e g lig e n c e u n d e rth e te rm s o f th e c o n tr a c t. T he c ontr a c tr e qui r e s P i one e rt o pr ovi de l i abi l i ty i ns ur a nc e f orC ont i ne nt a l “ w i thout l i m i ta nd w i thoutr e ga r d t o . . . the ne gl i ge nc e of a ny pa r ty orpa r t i e s . ” C l e a ra nd u n e q u iv o c a l c o n tr a c t la n g u a g e th a t in d e m n if ie s a p a r ty f

o rits n e g lig e n c e is e n f o r c e ab le u n d e rM o n ta n a la w . Se e S la te rv . Ce n t . Plu m b i n g& H e a t i n gCo . , 912 P . 2d 780, 782 ( M ont . 1996) . T he di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y c onc l ude d tha tthe a g r e e m e n t w a s c le a r . Se e R y an Me r c ant i l e C o. v . G r e at N . R y . C o. , 294 F . 2d 629, 633 ( 9th C i r . 1961) ( hol di ng tha t , unde rM ont a na l a w , a c ontr a c ti nde m ni f y i ng a thi rd party f

or “ any a nd al l pers on al i nj uri es . . . of every nam e a nd nature w hi ch m ayi n any m anner ar i se . . . w hether due or no tdu e t o the negl i gence of [the thi rd party] ” unam bi gu ou sl y i nd em ni fi ed the thi rd party f or the thi rd party’ s negl i gence ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ) ; Sw e e t v . C o lb o r n Sc h . Su p p ly , 639 P . 2d 521,P age 4 of 4

523 ( M ont . 1982) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng a n a m bi guous c ontr a c tf r om the c l e a ra nd une qui voc a l l a ngua ge i n R y an Me r c ant i l e C o. ). A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourt p r o p e r ly g r a n te d C o n tin e n ta l’s m o tio n f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a n d d e n ie d L ib e r ty M u tu a l’s m o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. AF F I RME D.