Opinion ID: 593933
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: BASF's Negligence is Genuinely at Issue

Text: 7 S & S attempts to show that BASF's negligence is not genuinely at issue by relying on BASF's stipulation: 8 in the event [Plaintiffs] were injured as the result of exposure to toxic fumes, the work performed by S & S [ ] had no direct or indirect effect on the release of the toxic fumes. Rather, the basis upon which the alleged contractual obligation is triggered is the reality that the plaintiffs would not have been present on the site and exposed to the fumes but for the work S & S was performing at the time of the alleged exposure pursuant to its contract with BASF. 9 S & S's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute (R. 57-58), agreed to in BASF's Statement of Disputed Facts (R. 96). S & S would have the court infer from this stipulation that, because its work had no effect on the release of fumes, some fault of the indemnitee obviously caused the release of fumes. Even if this stipulation absolves S & S of fault for the injuries, BASF's negligence is a distinct inquiry that has not been established one way or another by summary judgment evidence. 4 There has been no determination whether BASF's negligence caused any injuries, or whether the plaintiffs' claims even have merit. 10 The district court erroneously held that Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., 563 So.2d 258 (La.1990), supports summary judgment for S & S. Perkins decided only that a claim arises out of performance of work (within the meaning of a contract) if the claimant would not have been present at the site to be injured but for [the] performance of the work. Perkins, 563 So.2d at 259. Perkins did not decide the question of fault and indeed noted that the phrase arising out of does not require fault on the part of the contractor. Id. 11 The comparable provision in the contract at issue is the requirement that the injury occur[ ] directly or indirectly as the result of Contractor's prosecution of the work. By analogy to the provision in Perkins, we hold that this provision does not require fault of the contractor. The provision requires only a presence test, a but for causation test, like the provision in Perkins. The district court's statement that no evidence shows that the injuries were the result of the contractor's prosecution of the work either misconstrued the stipulation or misconstrued Perkins. The stipulation that the plaintiffs would not have been exposed to the fumes but for the contractor's work satisfies the presence test required by this provision of the contract.