Opinion ID: 2750362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Indemnity under MMR’s Insurance Policies

Text: Aside from the indemnification provision in the BOA, Westchester also argues that MMR had a separate obligation to indemnify Fluor pursuant to MMR’s insurance policies with Liberty, which are interpreted under Louisiana law. Westchester, as Fluor’s insurer, had the burden of proving that Fluor was entitled to coverage as an additional insured under MMR’s insurance policies with Liberty. See, e.g., Tunstall v. Stierwald, 809 So. 2d 916, 921 (La. 2002). Specifically, MMR’s excess-liability policy with Liberty provided that coverage for an insured “included in or added to an underlying policy” would not be broader “than is available to such insured under the underlying policy.” Further, the blanket additional-insured provision in the underlying policy— 19 Case: 13-30541 Document: 00512832743 Page: 20 Date Filed: 11/11/2014 No. 13-30541 MMR’s commercial general-liability policy with Liberty—limited coverage to injury arising out of “[MMR’s] work.” Westchester argues that MMR’s work under the BOA specifically included the installation of trailers with working LP gas detectors. However, as previously discussed, the record does not support this contention. The general-liability policy also defined “[MMR’s] work” to include “[w]arranties or representations made at any time with respect to the fitness, quality, durability, performance or use of ‘[MMR’s] work.’” Westchester reasons that because the BOA provided that “[MMR] has primary responsibility for quality” and was obligated “to implement the measures necessary to build quality into the work in accordance with the contract, drawings, and specifications,” the district court erred when it concluded that MMR made no warranties with respect to its work that occasioned the injuries. However, as discussed previously, see supra, note 1, these obligations related to “inspection and / or testing by [Fluor],” which, if required, would be identified in an Individual Release. For the same reason, Westchester’s arguments that MMR was obligated to test the LP detector based on MMR’s “general responsibility to ensure trailer quality,” also fails. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court in this regard.