Employee Injuries: Indemnify Court Jurisdiction, Procedure and Review: Choice of Law

摘要

Sonat hires Cudd through a Master Services Agreement to provide oilfield services. The MSA anticipates that the services will be provided in multiple states, including Louisiana. There is a provision stating that for jobs in Louisiana that Cudd name Sonat as an additional insured in its insurance policies. Cudd hires Brooks Well Servicing to provide some equipment for the Louisiana project Seven persons are killed in a gas well blowout in Louisiana. The injured parties sue Sonat and Cudd while Sonat files a cross-claim against Cudd under a contractual indemnity clause. After an initial appeal on a procedural point, 74 S.W.3d 185,163 O.&G.R. 912 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, rev. denied), a jury enters a judgment against Cudd for over $20 million. Cudd appeals arguing that the trial court incorrectly applies the Texas Oil Field Indemnity Act (Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 127.001 et seq.) because the evidence is inadequate to show the statutorily-mandated mutuality in order for an indemnity provision to be enforceable in Texas. One of the excess insurers seeks to intervene after Cudd and Sonat reach an agreement on the choice of law issues leading to the Texas Supreme Court opinion, In re Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co., 184 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. 2006). The Supreme Court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus authorizing the intervention. That leads to a second Court of Appeals decision on the choice of law matter. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. v. Sonat Exploration Co., 202 S.W.3d 901, 163 0.&G.R. 1105 (Tex. App—Texarkana 2006).