Opinion ID: 4149915
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rulings related to coverage

Text: A. Dismissal of Anadarko and Dolphin Drilling’s third-party claims After Liberty Mutual denied coverage, Anadarko and Dolphin Drilling both filed third-party complaints impleading OES and Liberty Mutual. The district court dismissed Anadarko and Dolphin Drilling’s third-party claims against Liberty Mutual with prejudice. This did not, however, resolve the related issue of whether Liberty Mutual owed OES coverage for the amounts OES spent indemnifying Anadarko, Dolphin Drilling, and Smith International. B. Summary judgment on OES’s cross-claim OES cross-claimed against Liberty Mutual seeking coverage for its indemnification of Dolphin Drilling, Smith International, and Anadarko. The district court granted summary judgment in Liberty Mutual’s favor, concluding that Dolphin Drilling and Smith International were Anadarko’s “contractors,” which the MSC’s indemnity provisions did not cover, rather than “subcontractors,” which the MSC’s indemnity provisions would cover. The court found that it “[could] not answer the . . . question” of whether to reform the MSC “at [that] time,” but contemplated that OES and Anadarko might renew their request for reformation of the MSC in subsequent motions. C. Reconsideration of summary judgment On March 24, 2015, the district court granted Anadarko, Dolphin Drilling, Smith International, and OES’s motions for reconsideration of the initial summary judgment ruling. 2 While the district court declined to revisit its prior construction of the MSC, the court permitted Anadarko and OES to reform the MSC to reflect a mutually-intended “knock for knock indemnity scheme that would require, under the circumstances of Mr. Richard’s injury, OES to indemnify Anadarko, Smith, and Dolphin.” 2 Anadarko filed one motion, while Dolphin, Smith, and OES jointly filed the second. 4 Case: 16-30216 Document: 00513895499 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/02/2017 No. 16-30216 D. Denial of Liberty Mutual’s subsequent challenge to the MSC’s reformation After OES filed an amended cross-claim reflecting the reformed indemnity provision, Liberty Mutual filed a new motion for summary judgment. Liberty Mutual essentially argued that reformation should not have been granted. The district court denied the motion on October 28, 2015. E. Interpretation of the OES-Liberty Mutual insurance policy The parties’ focus then turned to the language of the OES-Liberty Mutual insurance policy. In a one-day bench trial, the parties contested Liberty Mutual’s obligation to reimburse OES for the settlement funds and attorney’s fees OES spent in connection with the Richard suit. With respect to the settlement funds, the court found Liberty Mutual owed OES $900,000, representing the policy’s $1 million limit less a $100,000 deductible. With respect to attorney’s fees, the court awarded the full $468,599.90 OES spent defending itself, Dolphin Drilling, and Smith International. F. Denial of Liberty Mutual’s post-trial motions The district court denied Liberty Mutual’s motion for a new trial or to alter or amend the judgment on February 25, 2016. Liberty Mutual timely noticed this appeal on March 8, 2016.