Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Borman v. Shamrock Energy Solutions, L.L.C.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

October 7, 2019

GARLIN BORMAN
v.
SHAMROCK ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC., et al.

         SECTION: “J” (1)

          ORDER & REASONS

          CARL J. BARBIER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 61) filed by Third-Party Plaintiff Shamrock Energy Solutions, LLC (“Shamrock”), an opposition thereto (Rec. Doc. 65) by Third-Party Defendants, Linear Controls, Inc. (“Linear”) and First Mercury Insurance Company (“First Mercury”) (collectively “Defendants”), and Shamrock's reply (Rec. Doc. 68) to Defendants' opposition. Having considered the motion and legal memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion should be GRANTED.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         This litigation arises from personal injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff Garlin Borman (“Plaintiff Borman”)-a Linear employee-on or about October 24, 2016 while he was working on an offshore platform located on the Outer Continental Shelf at Eugene Island Block 189, off the coast of Louisiana and owned by Defendant Fieldwood Energy (“Fieldwood”). Shamrock also had employees working at the Fieldwood platform on the date of the incident. At the time of the incident, Fieldwood and Shamrock had in full force and effect a Master Services Contract (“MSC”) dated November 1, 2013, pursuant to which Shamrock provided personnel to work at Fieldwood's locations, including Eugene Island. Likewise, Linear and Fieldwood had in full force and effect a MSC (“Linear MSC”) also dated November 1, 2013. Linear was insured by First Mercury under a policy or policies in effect on the date of the incident. On October 13, 2016, Linear's insurance broker, Howard Risk Advisors, sent Fieldwood an invoice for $22, 429.00 for Marcel coverage, which Fieldwood paid on October 20, 2016.

         On October 15, 2017, Plaintiff Borman filed suit in state court against Shamrock, Shamrock's employee Bobby Barrow and Fieldwood alleging negligence. The case was timely removed to federal court. Shamrock subsequently filed a Third-Party Complaint against Defendants, alleging that Linear is obligated to defend, indemnify, and provide insurance coverage to Shamrock and Mr. Barrow with respect to the claims asserted by Plaintiff Borman pursuant to the terms of the Linear/Fieldwood MSC. Shamrock asserted further that Shamrock and Mr. Barrow are entitled to additional insured status under the insurance policy issued by First Mercury to Linear.

         On May 11, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Shamrock's Third-Party Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which Shamrock opposed. On February 19, 2019, the Court issued its Order & Reasons denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Rec. Doc. 41). On March 19, 2019 Plaintiff Borman dismissed his claims against Mr. Barrow. On August 13, 2019, Shamrock filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) alleging that Defendants are obligated to defend and indemnify Shamrock from Plaintiff Borman's claims in the original suit. Defendants oppose the MSJ, arguing that it is premature and that there exists a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Shamrock is an “invitee” according to the terms of the Linear MSC.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). When assessing whether a dispute as to any material fact exists, a court considers “all of the evidence in the record but refrains from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.” Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398 (5th Cir. 2008). All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, but a party cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated assertions. Little, 37 F.3d at 1075. A court ultimately must be satisfied that “a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Delta, 530 F.3d at 399.

         If the dispositive issue is one on which the moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party “must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.” Int'l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1264-65 (5th Cir. 1991) (internal citations omitted). The nonmoving party can then defeat the motion by either countering with sufficient evidence of its own, or “showing that the moving party's evidence is so sheer that it may not persuade the reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in favor of the moving party.” Id. at 1265.

         If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy its burden by merely pointing out that the evidence in the record is insufficient with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who must, by submitting or referring to evidence, set out specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists. See Id. at 324. The nonmovant may not rest upon the pleadings but must identify specific facts that establish a genuine issue for trial. See, e.g., Id. at 325; Little, 37 F.3d at 1075.

         DISCUSSION

         The issue here is whether Shamrock, as a third-party contractor employed to perform work on Fieldwood's offshore platform, is entitled to benefit from Fieldwood's payment of a Marcel premium to Linear. Resolving said issue requires the Court to answer two questions of law: (1) in the absence of a clear definition of the term “invitee” in a MSC, is a third-party contractor employed to work on a company's off-shore platform an “invitee, ” and thus considered part of the company's Company Group for insurance indemnification purposes; and (2) can a third-party contractor falling within the Company Group benefit from the company's payment of a Marcel premium? The Court answers both questions in the affirmative.

         I. Shamrock's MSJ is not premature and there are no ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.