Opinion ID: 794672
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Counterclaim and Cross-Claim

Text: 31 On December 10, 1998, Showboat filed a cross-claim against the Riverboat defendants, contending that Riverboat was solely responsible for all employment matters on the M/V Showboat, including termination of the plaintiffs; therefore, Showboat claimed, Riverboat was required to indemnify Showboat for all litigation expenses and for the cost of settlement. See R.37. In turn, on March 1, 1999, Riverboat filed a counterclaim against Showboat, claiming that Showboat was obligated under the terms of their Agreement to insure or indemnify Riverboat for all acts and omissions causing injury, including violation of § 2114. See R.46. On June 30, 2000, Showboat moved for summary judgment against Riverboat on its cross-claim, as well as on Riverboat's counterclaim. See R.68. The district court granted this motion in part and denied it in part. See R.99. First, the court found that the Agreement did not obligate Showboat to insure against retaliatory discharge claims. See id. at 5-9. Specifically, it held that, although § 5.01.1 of the Agreement speaks broadly of insurance policies for Riverboat's acts, omissions, and injuries, see R.37, Ex.A, this provision is modified by § 5.01.01, which specifies, and thereby limits, the requisite scope of coverage. Under § 5.01.01, Showboat was obligated to obtain insurance policies that included within their scope the following: worker's compensation insurance, comprehensive general liability insurance, full form protection and indemnity insurance on all vessels and floating equipment, hull and machinery insurance and collision liability insurance for damage to vessels. See R.99 at 9. However, it was not required to obtain an additional, general `acts and omissions' policy which would have covered intentional acts, such as violation of § 2114. See id. (emphasis in original). Riverboat now appeals this decision. 32 The district court, however, denied Showboat's motion for summary judgment on its cross-claim against Riverboat. The court held that, although the Agreement provides that 33 Riverboat is solely responsible — as between Riverboat and Showboat — for discharging plaintiffs, this does not absolve Showboat as owner ... of a vessel of liability to plaintiffs since plaintiffs have also brought a direct § 2114 claim against Showboat for discrimination, and, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving plaintiffs, a directive that plaintiffs be fired could certainly arguably constitute a manner of discrimination. Because the court is not prepared on the briefs before it to enter judgment in favor of Showboat on plaintiffs' discrimination claim, Showboat's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs is DENIED. 34 Id. at 9-10 (internal citation omitted) (alteration in original). 35 Showboat has not appealed the district court's denial of summary judgment. Because the parties never sought resolution of the factual issues implicating the disposition of this cross-claim, Showboat's cross-claim against Riverboat is still pending in the district court.