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

Heading: The Motion and Ruling

Text: 2 The contractor, S & S Sprinkler Company, Inc., agreed to defend and indemnify the plant owner, BASF Wyandotte Corporation, against claims [or] suits ... for or on account of any injury to ... persons ... which occurs in any way, directly or indirectly, as the result of Contractor's prosecution of the work. S & S moved for summary judgment against BASF, based on the absence of evidence to suggest that [any release of toxic fumes] was caused by the work being performed by them. Rather, it is evident such a release would have necessarily resulted from the negligence of BASF employees or from a defect in plant equipment owned by BASF. S & S's Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Sum. J. (R. 62-63). 3 Apparently accepting this argument, the district court found, There is no evidence which suggests S & S employees caused the injuries complained of nor is there any evidence in the record to show that the injuries complained of were 'the result of the contractor's prosecution of the work' under the contract between S & S and BASF. R. 119. The court granted S & S's motion for summary judgment on the basis that the contract does not provide indemnity against BASF's negligence or strict liability. R. 120. Yet the court made no finding whether BASF was or was not negligent or at fault. 4 Summary judgment is appropriate only if the record discloses that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In reviewing the summary judgment, we apply the same standard of review as did the district court. Waltman v. International Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 474 (5th Cir.1989). Finding that BASF's negligence is an unresolved issue of fact bearing on the indemnity obligation, we reverse the summary judgment.