Opinion ID: 2833796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Jones Accident and Procedural History

Text: Matthew Todd Jones, a Triple S employee working at the ATOFINA facility pursuant to the contract, drowned after he fell through the corroded roof of a storage tank filled with fuel oil. Jones’s relatives sued Triple S and ATOFINA for wrongful death, and ATOFINA initially sought insurance coverage from Admiral (as the primary insurer for the contract between Triple S and ATOFINA). Admiral quickly tendered its $1 million policy limit to ATOFINA. Hoping to recover any additional costs, ATOFINA also claimed insurance coverage as an additional insured under Triple S’s umbrella policy with Evanston. Evanston denied the claim, and ATOFINA impled Evanston as a third-party defendant seeking a declaration of coverage. ATOFINA later severed its suit against Evanston from the remainder of the Jones litigation and amended its complaint to assert a breach of contract claim. Both parties moved for partial summary judgment. While the motions were pending, ATOFINA settled the wrongful death litigation for $6.75 million and continued to seek recovery of the remaining $5.75 million from Evanston. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Evanston. The court of appeals reversed, holding that ATOFINA was covered under the Evanston policy. 104 S.W.3d 247, 250-52 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 2003, pet. filed). It then remanded the case for a determination of penalties and attorney’s fees. Id. at 252. The court of appeals began its analysis by observing that Triple S’s agreement to purchase insurance (and thus name ATOFINA as an “additional insured”) was not limited to insuring only the indemnity obligation. Id. at 250. If this were the case, the court noted, the insurance requirement would likewise be limited only to the indemnity liability. Id. “But where the additional insured provision stands separately from the indemnity provision, and is essentially a free‑standing insurance purchasing requirement, the scope of the insurance requirement is not limited by the indemnity clause.” Id. As the court noted, The contractual requirement that the insurance to be obtained by Triple S include insurance coverage for the indemnity obligation does not exclude other excess insurance coverage. Id. (citations omitted). Thus, the court concluded that the insurance purchasing requirement in the Triple S / ATOFINA contract required Triple S to provide insurance for ATOFINA to the same extent Triple S had insurance coverage. Id. The net result of the court’s holding is that ATOFINA’s coverage under the Evanston policy is essentially the same as if it were the primary insured.