# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 20 43

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ja ck Lieff

or t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff

v.

Dak ot a, Mi nn es ot a & Eas te rn Rai lro ad Co m pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Dak ot a, Mi nn es ot a & Eas te rn Rai lro ad Co m pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Th ir d Pa rt y Pla in ti ff
- App el la nt

v.

R. J. Co rm an Rai lro ad Co ns tru ct io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Th ir d Pa rt y Def en da nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 14 , 20 12
Fil ed : J an ua ry

7, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __Befo re MUR PHY, BENTON, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Afte r Ja ck Li e f

f o r t fel l an d in

jure d hi s le g an d hi p whi le wor ki ng as th e

em pl oyee-i n- ch a r ge of a co ns tru ct io n si te

, he su ed hi s em pl oyer, th e Dak ot a,

Mi nn es ot a an d Eas te rn Rai lro ad Co m pa ny (DM& E), un de r th e Fed eral Em pl oyers’

Liab il it y Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51 -6 0. DM&E t he n br ou gh t a th ird -p art y

co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t R.J

. Co rm an Rai lro ad Co ns tru ct io n (Co rm an ), co nt en di ng Co rm an

was req ui red to in de m

ni fy an d de fen d it ag ai ns t Lief fo rt’s F EL A cl ai m pu rs ua nt to

a co nt ract be twee n th e pa rti es

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or 1

of Co rm an , and we affi rm

.

I.

DM&E is a rai lro ad co m

pa ny th at m ai nt ai ns an in te rs ta te rai lro ad syste m , an d

Co rm an rep la ces an d i ns ta ll s rai lro ad tra ck s. In 20 07 , DM&E an d C or m an en te red

in to a Co nt ract or W or k Agr eem en t (CWA) fo r th e in st al la ti o n o f ne w rai l on

DM&E’s p r o p e rty in Io wa. The te rm s of th e CWA in cl ud ed an in de m ni fic at io n
cl au se , pro vi di ng :

Co nt ract or [Co rm an ] ag rees to de fen d, sa ve ha rm le ss an d in de m ni fy th e R a i lro ad [DM& E]

, it s of fic ers , di rect or s, sh areh ol de rs , ag en ts

,
em pl oyees, su cces so rs an d as si gn s fro m an y lo ss , co st or da m ag e by

reas on of Pers on al In

jury or pr op ert y d am ag e of wha ts oe ve r na tu re or

The Hon or ab le Ro ss A. W al te rs , Uni te d St a t es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 1

So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Io wa, to who m th e cas e w a s r e f e rred fo r fin al di sp os it io n by

co ns en t o f th e p art ie s p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 63 6( c).

-2

-ki nd ari si ng ou t of

, or as a r e s u l t of

, th e ne gl ig en t pe rfo rm an ce of th e W or k b y th e Co nt ract or s, i ts em

pl oyees, ag en ts , or s ub co nt ract or s.

Add i t i o n a l ly, th e CWA req ui red Co rm an to pr ov id e li ab il it y an d au to m ob il e

li ab il it y in su ran ce wit h sp eci fic po li cy li m it s an d na m e DM&E as an ad di ti on al

in su red un de r th e po li cy

. As a res ul t, Co rm an pu rch as ed an in su ran ce po li cy th ro ug h

Lex in gt on In su ran ce th at na m ed DM&E as an ad di ti on al in su red

. Th e Lex in gt on

In su ran ce po li cy m et th e fin an ci al req ui rem en ts in t h e C WA

, b ut Co rm an ke pt a $2 50 ,00 0 se lf- in su red ret en ti on , m ean in g th at Lex in gt on ha d no du ty to de fen d un ti l

Co rm an fir st sp en t $ 25 0,0 00 of i ts own fun ds . The Lex in gt on Ins ur an ce po li cy di d

no t ap pl y to th e fo ll owi ng :

(1 ) “ Bo di ly in

jury” to an “ em

pl oyee” of th e in su red ari si ng ou t of

an d i n t he co ur se of: (a) Em pl oym en t b y

th e in su red ; o r (b ) Perf or m ing dut ie s rel at ed to th e co nd uc t of th e in su red ’s
bu si ne ss ; o r (2 ) Any cl ai m or “ su it ” br ou gh t by th e sp o u s e , c hi ld

, pa ren t, br ot he r or si st er of th at “ em pl oyee ” as a co ns eq ue nc e of

pa rag rap h (1 ) ab ov e.

The re was an ex cep ti on to th is ge ne ral ex cl u s i o n fo r da m ag es “ [a]ss um ed in a

co nt ract or ag reem en t th at is an ‘ins ur ed co nt ract ,’ pr ov id ed th e ‘bod il y in ju r y ’ or ‘pro pe rty da m ag e’ oc cu rs su bs eq ue nt to th e ex ecu ti on of th e co nt ract or ag reem en t.”

An in su red co nt ract was de fin ed as an y pa rt of a “ co nt ract or ag reem en t pe rta in in g

to y ou r bu si ne ss

. . . un de r whi ch y ou as su m e th e to rt li ab il it y of an ot he r pa rty to pa y
fo r ‘bod il y

in jury’ or ‘pr op ert y

da m ag e’ to a th ird pe rs on or o rg an iz at io n.”

Ja ck Lief fo rt was a DM&E em

pl o ye e a nd th e em

pl oyee-i n- ch arg e of th e

Co rm an co ns tru ct io n pr ojec t. In th is ro le

, Li e f f o r t pr im ari ly m on it or ed tra in

m ov em en t to pr ev en t tra in s fro m tra ve li ng to ward s th e area s wh e r e Co rm an was

-3

-wor ki ng to in st al l r a i l l in es

. On May 1 6, 20 07 , Li effo rt be ga n pu tt in g ou t ti e fir es 2

to as si st Co rm an em

pl oyees. Unp ro m

pt ed

, Lief fo rt gr ab be d se ve ral bo tt le s of wate r

an d po ur ed th e wate r on a ti e fir e. As Lief fo rt was walk in g ba ck to hi s tru ck

, he

tri pp ed an d fel l to th e gr ou nd

, in juri ng hi s le ft le g an d hi p. Lief fo rt is no t su re wha t

he tri pp ed ov er or whe re he la nd ed

. Dur in g hi s de po si ti on , Lief fo rt fir st m ai nt ai ne d

th at he tri pp ed ov er a p ie ce of rai l, bu t l at er ad m it te d t ha t i t was m or e li ke ly tha t h e

tri pp ed whi le st ep pi ng ba ck ward s.

In Apr il 20 10

, Lief

fo rt su ed DM&E an d al le ge d DM&E was ne gl ig en t in

vi ol at io n of th e FELA. Lief fo rt’s co m

pl ai nt di d no t as se rt an y cl ai m ag ai ns t Co rm an

. 3

DM&E so ug ht de fen se an d in de m ni fic at io n fro m Co rm an an d Lex in gt on In su ran ce,
bu t bo th refu se d to de fen d th e cl a i m. Su bs eq ue nt ly, DM&E fil ed a th ird -p art y

co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t C o rm an , al le gi ng th at Co rm an was req ui red to in de m ni fy an d

de fen d DM&E un de r th e CWA an d se e k i n g a ju dg m en t fo r de fen se co st s an d

rei m bu rs em en t fo r an y

da m ag es award ed to Lieff or t.

Co rm an an d DM&E m ov ed fo r su m m ary ju d g m en t, bu t Lief fo rt se tt le d hi s
cl ai m ag ai ns t DM&E whi le th e pa rti es ’ m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t were pe nd in g

in th e di st ric t co ur t. The di st ric t co ur t g r a n t e d s u mm ary jud gm en t in fav or of

Co rm an , co nc lu di ng th at (1 ) DM&E wa s n o t e n ti tl ed to in de m ni fic at io n un de r th e

CWA be cau s e i t c o u l d no t es ta bl is h th at Co rm an was ne gl ig en t, an d (2 ) Lief fo rt’s

cl ai m s ag ai ns t DM& E fell ou ts id e of th e Lex in gt on In su ran ce po li cy

. DM&E no w

ap pe al s.

In st al li ng rai lro ad ti es co m m on ly cau se s ti e fir es be cau se of th e ex tre m e he at 2

req ui red to be nd th e m et al rai ls be fo re t he y are l ai d.

Dur in g hi s de po si ti on , whe n Lief fo rt was as ke d if Co rm an ha d do ne an y th in g 3

wro ng , he rep li ed : “ Did n’t ha ve en ou gh fir e fig ht in g eq ui pm en t th ere fo r on e th in g.”
Afte r he was as ke d if Co rm an di d an y th in g el se , Li e f f o rt sa id th at ex ces s m at eri al

co ul d h av e b een st or ed or p il ed wher e em pl oyees wer e n ot work in g.

-4

-II.

On ap pe al

, DM&E arg ue s ( 1 ) t h at th e in de m ni ty pr ov is io n co nt ai ne d in th e

CWA ex te nd s to Lief

fo rt’s FELA cl ai m an d (2 ) th at

, al te rn at iv el y , Lief fo rt’s cl ai m
is co ve red by th e Lex in gt on In su ran ce po li cy

. W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t cou rt’s

gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t. Woo ds v. Daim le rCh ry sl er Co rp ., 40 9 F.3 d 98 4, 99 0
(8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Rev ie win g “ th e reco rd in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g

pa rty,” id

., we wil l affi rm th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t “ if th e m ov an t sh ows th at

th ere is no ge n ui ne di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact an d th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law,” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 (a).

A.

Fi rs t, DM&E co nt en ds th at in de m ni ty pr ov is io ns in rai lro ad co nt ract s

im pl ic it ly in cl ud e FELA ne gl ig en ce cl ai m s, in ad di ti on to or di na ry ne gl ig en ce. 4

Und er th e FELA, rai lro ad em pl oyees ha ve a fed eral cau se of act io n fo r in juri es

“ res ul ti ng in who le or in pa rt fro m th e ne gl ig en ce” of th e rai lro ad

. 45 U.S.C. § 5 1.

I n craf ti ng th is rem ed y , “ Co ng res s rem ov ed va rio us co m m on -la w ob st acl es to a n

em pl oyee’s reco ve ry , an d co ur ts ha ve li be ral ly co ns tru ed FELA to fu rth er Co ng res s’s

rem ed ia l go al .” Co wde n v. BNSF Ry

. Co

., 69 0 F.3 d 88 4, 88 9- 90 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )
(in te rn al ci ta ti on , al te rat io n m ark s, an d q u ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Acco rd in g to
DM&E, ev en if Co rm an was no t ne gl ig en t un de r co m m on -la w ne gl ig en ce pr in ci pl es , it is li ab le un de r th e b ro ad er l ia bi li ty im po se d b y th e FELA.

Co rm an co nt en ds th at DM&E di d no t ra i s e th e is su e th at FELA cl ai m s are 4

im pl ie d in rai lro ad co nt ract s in th e di st ric t co ur t. Howev er, DM&E arg ue d in it s br ie f

su p p o r t in g it s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t th at a FELA cl ai m is a fo rm of

ne gl ig en ce an d, th eref

or e, is co ve red un de r th e te rm s of th e in de m ni ty p ro vi si on of
th e CWA, an d t he di st ric t co ur t ad dr es se d t hi s i ss ue

.

-5

-DM&E pr im ari ly rel ie s on th is Co ur t’s ho ld in g “ th at an in du st ry ’s ob li ga ti on

to in de m ni fy a rai lro ad un de r an in du st ria l tra ck ag reem en t is a co nt ract ua l du ty an d

no t a du ty ari si ng un de r th e co m m on la w of to rt.” B u r li ng to n N., In c. v. Hug he s

Bro s., In c., 67 1 F.2 d 27 9, 28 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 82 ); se e al so Bu rli ng to n N., In c. v. Bel la ire

Co rp ., 92 1 F.2 d 76 0, 76 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (s am e). The in de m ni fic at io n cl au se in
Hug he s Bro th ers st at ed th at th e rai lro ad co m pa ny wou ld be in de m

ni fie d fo r “ lo ss , da m ag e, or in

jury fro m an y act or om is si on of ” Hug he s Bro th ers , who se pl an t was

se rv ed by Bu rli ng to n Nor th ern ’s rai lro ad

. 67 1 F.2 d at 28 3. The co ur t fo un d t h at

“ [t]he ob vi ou s pu rp os e of th e ag reem en t i s t o pr ov id e fo r in de m ni fic at io n of th e

rai lro ad whe n th e in du st ry ’s act or om is si on vi ol at es th e rai lro ad ’s no nd el eg ab le du ty

to fu rn is h a sa fe pl ace fo r it s em pl oyees to wor k.” Id

. at 28 4. The co ur t reas on ed th at

th e co nt ract was m ad e in co nt em pl at io n of FELA l ia bi li ty, an d th us th e ph ras e “ act

or om is si on ” in th e di sp ut ed in de m ni fic at io n cl au se “ in cl ud e[d ] an y act or om is si on
whi ch co ns ti tu te s a vi ol at io n of th e rai lro ad ’s du ty to pr ov id e a sa fe wor k pl ace and

th us su bjec ts it to li ab il it y un de r th e act .” Id

.

The Elev en th Ci rcu it ha s di st in gu is he d Hug he s Bro th ers , co nc lu di ng th at th e

ag reem en t in Hug he s Bro th ers in cl ud ed FELA cl ai m s be cau se t h e i n d em ni fic at io n
cl au se ex te nd ed to “ li ab [il it y ] fo r an y act io ns or om is si on s

. . . .” S ee S. Ry . C o. v.

Ga. Kraft Co

., 82 3 F.2 d 4 7 8

, 4 81 n.4 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 87 ). In co nt ras t, th e co ur t in

Geo rg ia Kraft he ld th at th e ag ree men t

, w hi ch ex te nd ed to “ ‘any an d al l da m ag e

res ul ti ng fro m ne gl ig en ce of ’ Geo rg ia Kraft ,” id

. at 47 9, co nt em pl at ed co m

m on -la w

ne gl ig en ce be cau se “ th e in de m ni t y ag reem en t cl earl y sa y s ‘neg li ge nc e’ of Geo rg ia

Kraft ,” id

. at 48 2. The refo re, “ no la ng ua ge in di cat [ed ] an y gr ou nd fo r li ab il it y ot he r

th an co m m on -la w neg li ge nc e.” Id

.

W e co n c l u d e t he sa m e is tru e in th is cas e: no th in g in th e CWA ag reem en t

i n d i c at es th at it ex te nd s to cl ai m s whi ch are un rel at ed to Co rm an ’s co m m on -la w

ne gl ig en ce. The in de m

ni ty cl au se in th e CWA do es no t m en ti on th e FELA. It st at es

th at it co ve rs al l clai m s “ ari si ng ou t of, or as a res ul t of, the ne gl ig en t pe rfo rm an ce”

-6

-of Co rm an

. The refo re, it is m or e si m il ar to th e p ro vi si on in Geo rg ia Kraft th an th e

br oa de r pr ov is io ns co nt ai ne d in Bel la ire an d Hug he s Bro th ers

. In th os e cas es , th e

in d e mn it y ag reem en ts co ve red da m ag es res ul ti ng fro m “ an y act or om is si on .”
Hug he s B r os ., 67 1 F.2 d at 28 3; Bel la ire

, 92 1 F.2 d at 76 2. Here, si m il ar to th e

in de m ni ty pr ov is io n in Geo rg ia Kraft

, th e in de m ni ty cl au se is ex pl ic it ly t i ed to

Co rm an ’s ne gl ig en ce; th us , wit ho ut pr oo f of an y ne gl ig en ce by Co rm an , Lief fo rt’s

da m ag es are no t co ve red by t he in de m ni ty cl au se in th e CWA. DM&E as se rts th at

th e “ of wha ts oe ve r na tu re or ki nd ” la ng ua ge in th e in de m ni ty cl au se is br oa d en ou gh

in cl ud e FELA li ab il it y

. “ Of wha ts oe ve r na tu re or ki nd ,” ho wev er, refe rs to th e in ju ry

su ffe r e d

, n ot th e ac t co m m it te d. The la ng ua ge di sc us si ng th e act is “ ne gl ig en t

pe rfo rm an ce,” an d be cau se th ere is no pr oo f of ne gli ge nc e, th e in de m ni fic at io n cl au se
is no t t rig ge red

.

DM&E arg ue s th a t t h e se tt le m en t ag reem en t pr ov ed Co rm an ’s ne gl ig en ce,
ci ti ng Mi ss ou ri Paci fic Rai lro ad Co

. v. In te rn at io na l Pap er Co

., 61 8 F.2 d 49 2 (8 th Ci r.

19 80 ). The re, th e co ur t he ld th at “ th e se tt le m en t of th e FELA cl ai m c o n c l u s i v el y

res ol ve d th e is su e of li ab il it y , ab se nt frau d or co l l u s i o n

. ” Id

. at 49 5. The co ur t’s

ho ld in g, ho wev er, was ba se d on th e te rm s of an in de m ni ty ag reem en t whi ch ti ed th e
ob li ga ti on to in de m

ni fy th e rai lro ad to th e rai lro ad ’s F ELA l ia bi li ty. See id . a t 49 6
(“ In ot he r wor ds

, IPC is li ab le to th e Rai lro ad un de r th e in de m ni ty ag reem en t if IPC’s

co nd uc t m a d e t h e R a i lro ad li ab le to Ro ach un de r FELA.”). Fu rth er, th e in de m ni ty

ag reem en t in In te rn at io na l Pap er co nt ai ne d th e sa m e br oa d la ng ua ge as th e co nt ract s

in Bel la ire an d Hug he s Bro th ers , ag reei ng to in de m ni fy ag ai ns t lo ss or i nju ry fro m

“ an y act or om is si on ” of th e in de m ni to r or it s em

pl oyees. I d

. ( i nt ern al em ph as is

om it te d)

. Eve n if th e se tt le m en t be twee n Lief fo rt an d DM&E es ta bl is he d DM&E’s

FELA li ab il it y , DM&E ha s pr es en te d no ev id en ce th at Co rm an act ed ne gl ig en tl y , an d

th e in de m ni fic at io n ag reem en t be twee n DM&E an d Co rm an on ly ex te nd s to da m ag es

cau se d by th e ne gl ig en t co nd uc t of Co rm an

. The refo re, th e se tt le m en t be twe e n
Lief fo rt an d DM&E di d no t co nclus iv el y es ta bl is h Co rm an ’s ob li ga ti on to de fen d an d

in de m ni fy DM&E u nd er t he CWA ’s in de m ni fic at io n c la us e.

-7

-Fu rth er, in th e di st ric t co ur t, DM& E ag reed th at Co rm an was no t ne gl ig en t.

In DM&E’s br ie f in su pp or t of it s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, it st at ed

, “ Co rm an ’s

refu sa l of DM&E’s te nd er of de fen se in th is cas e is ba se d on th e arg um en t th at th ere

was no ne gl ig en ce (

DM& E ag re es wi th th is ), an d th eref or e th ere is no du ty un de r th e

in de m ni fic at io n cl au se on th e pa rt of Co rm an .” (e mp h as is ad de d)

. Asi de fro m th e

se tt le m en t, the on ly ev id en ce offe red to es ta bl is h Co rm an ’s ne gl ig en ce is Lieffo rt’s

s t a t em en t du rin g hi s de po si ti on th at Co rm an sh ou ld ha ve ha d m or e fir e-fi gh t i n g

eq ui pm en t on si te

. Lief fo rt’s de po si ti on do es no t es ta bl is h th at Co rm an was

ne gl ig en t, or th at th e wor kp la ce was un sa fe. In hi s de po si ti on , Lief fo rt ack no wled ge s

th at he do es no t kn ow wha t he tri pp ed on an d ad m it s th at he was ba ck in g up whe n he

tri pp ed

. Fu rth er, Lief

fo rt ha d no du ty to as si st in pu tt in g ou t th e ti e fir es , no r was he

as ke d to ai d in th at effo rt. DM&E ha s no t sh own an y is su es of m at eri al fact ex is t,

an d, th eref

or e, we co nc lu de as a m at te r of la w th at no ne gl ig en ce can be at tri bu te d to

Co rm an

.

B.

S e co nd

, DM&E arg ue s th at ev en if Lief fo rt’s cl ai m is no t co ve red un de r th e

in de m ni ty pr ov is io n in th e CWA, it is st il l co ve red un de r th e Lex in gt on In su ran ce

po li cy

. The po li cy st at es it do es no t co ve r “ bo di ly in jury to an em

pl oyee of th e 5

in su red ari si ng ou t o f t he co ur se of

. . . em pl oym en t by th e in su red .” DM&E

co nc ed es th is ge ne ral ex cl us io n pr ov is io n in th e po li cy ap pl ie s, bu t co nt en ds th at th e

DM&E al so arg ue s t ha t if Lief fo rt’s cl ai m is no t co ve red , t he n it is a br each 5

of th e te rm s of th e CWA ag reem en t, whi ch req ui red Co rm an to pr oc ur e in su ran ce, be cau se Co rm an se lf-ins ur ed a po rti on of th e Lex in gt on In su ran ce po li cy

. DM&E di d

no t di rect ly rai se th is arg um en t in it s br ie fin g be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t or rai se a cau se of act io n fo r br each of co nt ract in it s th ird -p art y co m pl ai nt

. In de ed

, th e di st ric t co ur t

no te d th at th e arg um en t th at se lf- in su ran ce m ay co ns ti tu te a br each of th e CWA was

no t m ad e; th eref

or e, be cau se DM&E n ev er ra is ed th is arg um en t, we d o n ot ad dr es s it

. See Aaro n v. Targ et Co rp ., 3 57 F.3 d 76 8

, 7 7 9 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 04 ) (“ Arg um en ts an d
is su es rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n a pp eal are g en eral ly not co ns id ered

. . . .”).

-8

-p o l i c y st il l ex te nd s to Lief fo rt’s cl ai m un de r a se pa rat e ex cep ti on to th e ge ne r a l

ex cl us io n. The ex cep ti on DM&E rel ie s up on rel at es to an “ in su red co nt ract ,” whi ch

co ve rs “ th e to rt li ab il it y of an ot he r pa rty.” Acco rd in g to DM&E, th e in de m ni fic at io n

ag reem en t i n t he CWA is an in su red co nt ract , wi th in th e m ean in g of th e Lex in gt on

In su ran ce po li cy , be cau se Co rm an ag rees to in de m ni f y D M & E fo r DM&E’s own FELA neg li ge nc e.

Und er So ut h Dak ot a la w , t o r e l i ev e a pa rty of it s own ne gl ig en ce, “ th e 6

la ng u a g e o f t he ag reem en t m us t be cl ear an d un eq ui vo cal .” Bel l v. E. Ri ve r Elec

. Po wer Co op

. In c., 53 5 N.W .2d 75 0, 75 3 (S.D. 19 95 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

. To es ta bl is h th e ex is t e n c e o f a n in su red co nt ract un de r th e te rm s of th e

Lex in gt on In su ran ce po li cy , th ere m us t be an ob li ga ti on to in de m ni fy a pa rty ag ai ns t

it s own ne gl ig en ce. The in de m ni fic at io n pr ov is io n whi ch DM&E co nt en ds is th e
ba si s fo r th e in su red co nt ract do es no t in di cat e t h a t C o r man is li ab le fo r DM&E’s

ne gl ig en ce, or th e ne gl ig en ce of DM&E’s em pl oyees. Rat he r, th e in de m n i f i c a t i o n

pr ov is io n on ly ex te nd s to cl ai m s ba se d up on Co rm an ’s ne gl ig en t co nd uc t. The refo re,

th e in de m

ni fic at io n pr ov is io n in th e CWA do es no t tri gg er th e in su re d co nt ract

ex cep t i o n t o th e ge ne ral ex cl us io n pr ov is io n co nt ai ne d in th e Lex in gt on In su ran ce

po li cy , and , as a res ul t, n o o bl ig at io n e xi st s b as ed on th e te rm s o f th e p ol ic y

. 7

The pa rti es ag ree th at S o u t h Dak ot a la w ap pl ie s to th is cas e ba se d on th e 6

ch oi ce-o f-l aw cl au se in th e CWA.

DM&E arg ue s th at Co rm an ’s se lf -i nsur ed re te nti on ag reem en t wit h Lex in gt on 7

m ak es Co rm an a n i n s u r er fo r DM&E. Fo r DM&E to pr ev ai l on th is arg um en t, we

mu s t fin d th at Lief

fo rt’s cl ai m is co ve red un de r th e Lex in gt on In su ran ce po li cy

. Thu s, th is arg um en t si m il arl y fai ls be cau se we co n c l u d e Lief fo rt’s cl ai m is no t

co ve red un de r th e p ol ic y

.

-9

-III.

W e affi rm th e ru li ng of th e di st ric t co ur t gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or

of Co rm an

.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-