Opinion ID: 6104644
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims Relating to the BP-NRC Agreement

Text: In relevant part, the NRC-BP Agreement requires NRC to indemnify BP only to the extent a claim is “caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of [NRC],” and for which NRC was not entitled to the protection of “Responder Immunity Law.” 26 This Agreement lacks notice, control-of-defense, or consent-to-settle provisions. Under the circumstances presented here, the opt-out B3 and BELO claims implicating the BP-NRC Agreement must be evaluated on a claim-byclaim basis. We agree with BP that the district court erred by relying on its 2016 orders to conclude that “under no circumstances is BP entitled to indemnity from NRC.” The fact that one set of B3 plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue regarding whether NRC had disobeyed federal instructions does not mean no plaintiff ever will. 27 NRC appears to recognize as much, 26 BP and NRC seem to agree that the immunity question turns on the extent to which NRC was acting “pursuant to the authorization and direction of the federal government.” 27 The 2016 orders referenced by the district court focused only on certain B3 claims directed against the clean-up defendants (including the Responders here), not those 23 Case: 20-30364 Document: 00516171755 Page: 24 Date Filed: 01/19/2022 No. 20-30364 arguing in large part that “BP has yet to identify any actual case” that would fall within the contract’s indemnification provisions. NRC acknowledges that if such a case ever materialized “the most that would follow from BP’s argument is that it remains able to argue for a different result under those peculiar facts[.]” We agree—BP should be able to make such an argument under appropriate facts. Thus, we conclude that whether a given claim falls within the BP-NRC Agreement’s indemnification provision is a claimspecific, factual inquiry best resolved by the district court in the first instance. Alternatively, the district court indicated in a footnote that “the Medical Settlement similarly prejudiced NRC, voiding NRC’s duty to indemnify BP against the BELO claims.” But because the BP-NRC Agreement did not contain notice, control-of-defense, or consent-to-settle provisions, it is unclear whether NRC’s indemnification obligations precisely track the material breach analysis under the BP-O’Brien’s Contract. The single case cited by the district court, arising under Louisiana law, is factually far-afield from the one before us. Hiern v. St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co., 262 F.2d 526, 528–29 (5th Cir. 1959) (involving allegations that an indemnitee’s “failure to act, after promising it would do so, permitted [a] coindemnitor to dispose of misappropriated assets while [the indemnitee] was directed against BP. See generally In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, MDL No. 2179, ECF No. 21406, 2016 WL 4091416 (E.D. La. Aug. 2, 2016) [hereinafter “August Order”]; In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, MDL No. 2179, ECF No. 15853, 2016 WL 614690 (E.D. La. Feb. 16, 2016). In fact, the August Order illustrates how a responder might fail to establish a “derivative immunity defense,” and thus at least potentially fall within the relevant indemnity clause here. August Order, 2016 WL 4091416, at  (finding a “genuine dispute as to a material fact as to whether [a responder] complied with an applicable and relevant federal regulation or directive during the response[]” based on allegations that the responder “supplied [a plaintiff] with no [personal protective equipment],” as required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Hazardous Waste and Emergency Response Standard). 24 Case: 20-30364 Document: 00516171755 Page: 25 Date Filed: 01/19/2022 No. 20-30364 making repeated representations that it was doing and would be [doing] everything possible to secure these assets . . .”). The district court must carefully reassess the BELO claims under the BP-NRC Agreement pursuant to Texas law.