Opinion
Civil Action No: 01-638, C/W 01-868, Section: "J" (2)
June 20, 2002
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Cross-Claims (Rec. Doc. 49), filed by defendant/plaintiff in cross-claim, Chieftain International (U.S.), Inc. ("Chieftain"). Defendant in cross-claim, Operators Consulting Services, Inc. ("OCS"), opposes the motion. The motion was submitted on briefs on June 11, 2002, and on June 19, 2002, the court granted Chieftain leave to file a reply memorandum. For the following reasons, the Court finds that the motion should be granted.
BACKGROUND
According to the allegations in their amended complaints, plaintiffs in these consolidated cases were employed by defendant LM Botruc Rental, Inc. when they were injured while attempting to transfer to an LM Botruc vessel from a rig owned and operated by Chieftain, due to the negligence of LM Botruc, Chieftain and OCS. Chieftain filed a cross-claim (Rec. Doc. 19) against LM Botruc and OCS, alleging, inter alia, that any negligence ultimately imputed to it was solely due to the fault of LM Botruc and OCS, and further, that the cross-defendants owed contractual and tort indemnities in Chieftain's favor for any losses suffered by Chieftain.
Chieftain filed a motion for summary judgment (Rec. Doc. 23), in which it argued that under the undisputed facts of this case as evidenced by, inter alia, the testimony of the OCS crane operator, there was no evidence of negligence by Chieftain nor any legal basis for recovery against Chieftain by plaintiffs. Subsequently, plaintiff informed the Court that it did not oppose that motion for summary judgment, because Chieftain bore no liability for the claims raised against it. On this basis, the Court granted Chieftain's motion for summary judgment. Rec. Doc. 32.
Now, Chieftain moves this Court for summary judgment against OCS, finding that OCS must indemnify Chieftain for all attorneys' fees and legal costs expended by Chieftain in defense of the plaintiffs' claims. Chieftain argues that at the time of plaintiffs' injuries, it and OCS were operating pursuant to a Master Service Agreement between the two parties which provided that OCS would indemnify Chieftain for any losses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of OCS' performance under the agreement. In so arguing, Chieftain emphasizes that this Court's previous dismissal of the claims against it was premised on plaintiffs' acknowledgment that "Chieftain [bore] no liability for the claims raised against it." Rec. Doc. 32.
In opposing Chieftain's motion for summary judgment, OCS does not take issue with any of the material facts represented by Chieftain, but rather argues that Chieftain is improperly seeking indemnity from only one co-defendant (OCS), when the allegations of the cross-claim reveal that LM Botruc may also be liable for Chieftain's losses. Relying on Hobbs v. Teldyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 632 F.2d 1238 (5th Cir. 1980), OCS argues that because it and LM Botruc are solidary obligors on any debt owed to Chieftain, Chieftain may not seek indemnification solely from OCS, but rather, is required to also name LM Botruc in its request for relief.
DISCUSSION
Assuming arguendo that OCS and LM Botruc are solidarily obligated to pay any amounts owed to Chieftain, the law is clear that "each obligor is liable for the whole performance." LA. Civ. CODE art. 1794. Further, "[a]n obligee, at his choice, may demand the whole performance from any of his solidary obligors. A solidary obligor may not request division of the debt." Id., art. 1795. If a solidary obligor satisfies the whole obligation, he "may claim from the other oligors no more than the virile portion of each." Id art. 1804. These are the exact principles emphasized by the court in the Hobbs case relied upon by OCS; thus, the Court does not see how that case helps OCS's position at all. See 632 F.2d at 142. To the contrary, that case bears out the point that Chieftain is entitled to proceed against OCS for the full amount of the debt; OCS may then seek contribution of its virile share from LM Botruc, providing LM Botruc is ultimately found solidarily liable on the debt. Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that Chieftain's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Cross-Claims (Rec. Doc. 49) should be and is hereby GRANTED, and defendant in cross-claim, Operators Consulting Services, Inc., is liable for all attorneys' fees and legal costs expended by Chieftain to date in defense of the claims asserted by plaintiffs in the consolidated cases;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that OCS shall submit any traverse to Chieftain's itemization of fees and costs due within 15 days of entry of this order.