3 Issues Considered Risk Shifting Provisions in Marine Service Contracts Validity of Risk Shifting Provisions Other Considerations of Validity Defenses to Enforcement
4 Introduction Maritime contracts often contain clauses that shift the risk of loss from one contracting party to another. These clauses are important to identify because one party to the contract may have agreed that another party cannot be held liable for its own negligence, limit responsibility for damages, provide a waiver of subrogation rights or agree to provide insurance or another form of indemnity. Such clauses can also be advantageous for the insurer when the insured shifts its risk to another party. They can also adversely affect an insurer s ability to subrogate. Thus, it is important to know how to identify and apply these clauses and understand their enforceability and impact on your coverage.
5 Typical Risk Shifting Provisions Exculpatory Clause Limitation of Liability Waiver of Subrogation Indemnification Reciprocal Indemnity Provision of Liability Insurance
6 Risk Shifting An example often seen, and frequently addressed by courts, is a maritime contract arising from vessel repairs in shipyards. The potential for a loss increases when a vessel is in a shipyard compared to typical navigation or dockage. The shipyards themselves often seek to shift as much of the risk onto the vessel owner by utilizing these clauses, sometimes seeking to absolve themselves from liability for defects in their own workmanship or the material provided, or in connection with negligence of the shipyard while performing the work.
7 Risk Shifting Such clauses are also seen in contracts between marinas and vessel owners. Dockage contracts frequently seek to shift the risk of loss onto the vessel owner. Marinas may operate rental businesses including personal water craft, kayaks and scuba diving, and require the renter to release the marina from liability related to the condition, use and operation of the craft.
8 Types of Clauses
9 Types of Clauses Waiver of subrogation Exculpatory clauses Limitation of Liability Indemnification Provision of Insurance
10 Jurisdiction Federal maritime law applies to contracts that are maritime in nature. This is determined by the nature and character of the contract, not its place of execution or performance. Thus, a contract relating to a ship s use, to commerce or navigation on navigable waters, to transportation by sea or to maritime employment is subject to maritime law. Alex v. Wild Well Control, Inc. et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (La. E.D. 2009). A claim for an open account and attorney s fees under a state statute was dismissed because an examination of the circumstances under which the contract was formed led to a determination that it was a maritime contract subject to federal maritime law, not state law. Jambon & Assoc. v. Seamar Divers LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E.D. La. 2009).
11 Jurisdiction In opining that a contract between parties was governed by federal maritime law, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the circumstances under which the contract was drawn had a salty flavor. Kossick v. United Fruit Co., 365 U.S. 731 (1961). Conversely, state law will apply to contracts determined to be non-maritime in nature. Jones v. Berwick Bay Oil Co., 697 F.Supp. 260 (E.D. La. 1988). Thus, a determination on how each state enforces risk shifting clauses would be necessary with a wide variety of results. This discussion addresses maritime contracts under federal maritime law jurisdiction.
12 Waivers of Subrogation
13 Waivers of Subrogation Example: Any and all of the Parties' insurance policies provided under the provisions of this Contract or which may be used in relation to this Contract shall contain provisions that the insurers shall have no right of subrogation against the other Party Group, it being the intent of the Parties that the insurance policies shall protect both Party Groups.
14 Waivers of Subrogation Subrogation clauses are often found in first party property policies (such as a yacht policy) and govern the relationships of insurer and insured when subrogation against a third party has been waived. Some hull and machinery policies specifically authorize the insured to waive subrogation. Waivers of subrogation, when properly drafted, are generally enforceable under general maritime law.
15 Waivers of Subrogation The 5 th Circuit has held that a maritime contract may contain a waiver of subrogation clause. Such a clause does not equate to a total exculpation from liability and is therefore not contrary to public policy. Fluor Western, Inc. v. G&H Offshore Towing, 447 F.2d 35 (5 th Cir. 1970). The 2 nd Circuit has held that a waiver of subrogation may exist either by contract or through conduct inconsistent with the right of subrogation, thus, where an insured settled and released a third party from liability, the subrogation right may be destroyed. Gibbs v. Hawaiian Eugenia Corporation, 966 F.2d 101 (2 nd Cir. 1992). The 9 th Circuit has held that a clear provision waiving subrogation is enforceable. Dant v. Russell, Inc. v. Dillingham Tug & Barge Corp., 877 F.2d 1404 (9 th Cir. 1989).
16 Exculpatory Clauses Example: I hereby release, waive and forever discharge Inland Water Sports, or Camp Cayuga, its owners, directors, officers, employees and its agents from all liability for any and all loss or damage, and any claim or demands therefore on account of injury, death or property damage or loss, now and forever, arising out of or related to participation and/or instruction, activities of any other related diving operations that may occur, whether caused by the negligence of releasees or otherwise.
17 Exculpatory Clauses Example: I hereby agree to release, discharge and hold harmless Southport Marina, its owners, directors, officers, employees and its agents from all liability for any and all loss or damage, and any claim or demands therefore on account of injury, death or property damage or loss, now and forever, arising out of or related to the use of the docks, premises or any other related marina operations that may occur, whether caused by the negligence of releasees or otherwise.
18 Exculpatory Clauses
19 Exculpatory Clauses The benchmark case on the exculpatory clause is Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., 349 U.S. 85 (1955). There, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled than an exculpatory clause was void because it was contrary to public policy. The Defendant in Bisso was a towing company that included in the towing contract a clause that all movement was at the sole risk of the Plaintiff. The Court opined that such a clause in towing contracts was unenforceable because, (1) negligence must be discouraged by making wrongdoers pay damages and (2) towing companies have the ability to overreach and drive hard bargains, as well as act as a monopoly, based on the need for their services.
20 Exculpatory Clauses Exculpatory clauses seek to completely absolve a party from liability. There exists a split in circuit courts on whether exculpatory clauses under admiralty law are enforceable. Sander v. Alexander Richardson Investments, 334 F.3d 712 (8th Cir. 2003). Because exculpatory clauses are intended to avoid all liability, even for a party s own fault, they are closely scrutinized by courts and generally considered against public policy. However, if properly drafted, in some circuits they can be enforced, resulting in no recourse against the exculpating party for loss.
21 Exculpatory Clauses The 9th Circuit, in Royal Ins. Co. v. Southwest Marine, 194 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 1999) determined Bisso applied only to towing contracts and enforced an exculpatory clause, although it noted a party cannot shield itself from gross negligence or misrepresentation. In Hall-Scott Motor Car Co. v. Universal Insurance Co., 122 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1941), where a vessel was destroyed by fire in a shipyard and a jury found for the vessel owner, the court reversed noting the right of private contract is no small part of the liberty of the citizen and determined an exculpatory clause did not infringe on public policy.
22 Exculpatory Clauses The 8th Circuit, in Sander v. Alexander Richardson Invs., 334 F.3d 712 (8th Cir. 2003) allowed total exculpation of liability because the clause was unambiguous and there was no evidence of unequal bargaining power or overreaching. In Sander, the Court distinguished a dockage contract from the towing contract in Bisso holding that because there was not the possibility of a monopoly by one party (such as towing companies may have) or unequal bargaining power, the Bisso reasoning did not apply.
23 Exculpatory Clauses However, the 11th Circuit will not enforce a clause calling for total exculpation of a party for its own negligence and follows Bisso determining such a clause is contrary to public policy. Diesel Repower Inc. v. Islander Invs., Ltd., 271 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2001). The 5th Circuit has also not enforced a clause calling for total exculpation, instead allowing clauses that limit a party s liability to a certain amount. Alcoa S.S. Co. v. Charles Ferran & Co., 383 F.2d 46 (5th Cir. 1967). In all circuits, gross negligence may vitiate an otherwise valid exculpatory clause under maritime law. Lykes Bros. SS. v.waukesha Bearings Corp., 502 F.Supp (E.D. La. 1980).
24 Limitation of Liability Example: Furthermore, we undertake to perform work and/or provide public or private berth, wharfage, towage, and other services and facilities ONLY upon the condition, expressly acknowledged by Customer, that we shall not be liable in respect to any one vessel or job, directly or indirectly in contract, tort, or otherwise, to its owners, charterers, underwriters, or representatives for any injury, loss, or damage to such vessel, its cargo, equipment or movable stores, or for any consequences thereto, to said owners, parties in interest, or any third party unless such injury is directly caused by our negligence or the negligence of our employees, and in no event shall aggregrate liability to all such parties in interest for damages sustained by them, as a result of such injury, or such defective workmanship or material, exceed the sum of $300,
25 Limitation of Liability While the 11th Circuit held consistently that exculpation clauses are unenforceable, it has allowed parties to limit their liability in maritime contracts, that is, to determine a maximum amount a party may be required to pay. Edward Leasing Corp. v. Uhlig & Assoc., 785 F.2d 877 (11th Cir. 1987). The Court determined that the concerns of Bisso, (1) that negligence must be discouraged by making wrongdoers pay damages and (2) to prevent overreaching by parties who have the ability to drive hard bargains, are satisfied by a limitation provision. However, such a limitation clause must be clear and unequivocal and there must exist equal bargaining power between the parties. Diesel Repower Inc. v. Islander Invs., Ltd., 271 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2001). The 1st Circuit generally follows this rationale. La Esperanza v. Perez y Cia. De Puerto Rico, Inc., 124 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 1997).
26 Limitation of Liability The 5th Circuit in Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc. v. Charles Ferran & Co., Inc., 383 F.2d 46 (5th Cir. 1967), upheld a limitation clause which limited liability to $300,000 noting this was a sufficient deterrent for negligence.
27 Indemnification Example: The Owner and/or Owner s heirs agree to hold the marina harmless and to indemnify it for any and all loss, damage or liability of any kind, whether claimed by reason of acts or the failure to act on the marina s part, relating to the space and further agrees to hold the marina harmless from loss, damage or liability incurred by Owner (or Owner s boat) while it is moored at and/or is being transported and/or delivered to the dock or while the vessel is being transported from the dock to any destination Owner may specify or request.
28 Indemnification An indemnification clause holds a party harmless and indemnifies it from liability to a third party, putting the responsibility on the other party to the contract. A properly drafted and specific indemnification clause will generally be valid, however, courts look at these clauses similarly to how they look at exculpation clauses, particularly if they provide indemnification for the shipyard s own negligence.
29 Indemnification An indemnification clause must clearly and unequivocally express the intent of the parties. Nigeria National Petroleum Corp. v. Seabulk Merlin, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (Fla. S.D. 2005). The 5th Circuit has held that to be enforceable, indemnity clauses in a maritime contract that exempt a party from liability for its own negligence must be specific and conspicuous. Orduna S.A. v. Zen-Noh Grain Corp., 913 F.2d 1149 (5th Cir. 1990). Conspicuous is when a reasonable person against whom the provision is to operate should have noticed it. Coastal Iron Works Inc. v. Petty Ray Geophysical, 783 F.2d 577 (5th Cir. 1986).
30 Indemnification Indemnity provisions can also be encountered in personal injury contexts. In Lanasse v. Travelers Insurance Co., 450 F.2d 580 (5th Cir. 1971) an indemnity provision was invoked related to the responsibilities of the parties to crewmembers under a time charter. In Fontenot v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir. 1986), a charterer owed indemnification to an owner for an injury onboard based on such a clause.
31 Indemnification The 7th Circuit has held that an indemnity provision will be enforced only when it is clear, complete, unambiguous and not the result of an unfair or superior bargaining position. Gillen v. U.S., 825 F.2d 1155 (7th Cir. 1987). As with exculpation clauses, under general maritime law it is against public policy to allow a party to be indemnified for its own gross negligence. Royal Insurance Co. v. Southwest Marine, 194 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 1999).
32 Reciprocal Indemnity Clauses Each party accepts responsibility and liability for the death or personal injury of its own personnel whether or not caused by the negligence or gross negligence of the other party Each party further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other party, as regards both liability and legal costs, in the event the aforesaid personnel or their dependents pursue claims for death or personal injury against the party who is not responsible for them under this contract.
33 Reciprocal Indemnity Clauses Reciprocal Indemnity Agreements, often called knockfor-knock clauses, are indemnifying clauses in which the parties stipulate and agree that each party will bear its own losses and will hold the other party harmless, regardless of which is negligent.
34 Reciprocal Indemnity Clauses Where each party agreed to indemnify and defend the other party for any claims arising, such a clause is enforceable. Thus, when an employee of one party was injured and sued the other contracting party, the first party was obligated to indemnify and defend the other contracting party. Lively v. Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E.D. La. 2004). Such agreements are enforceable even if the burden of one party differs from that of the other. Nigeria National Petroleum Corp. v. Seabulk Merlin, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (Fla. S.D. 2005). Such clauses are examined similarly to indemnity agreements, they must be unequivocal and unambiguous, clearly setting forth the intent of the parties.
35 Provision of Insurance Clauses Example: It is further agreed that each such policy, other than workers compensation policies, shall name Strangle Point Marina as an Additional Insured with respect to Owner s obligations hereunder.
36 Provision of Insurance Clauses Many contracts require a party to list the other party as an additional insured, commonly referred to as an insurance procurement provision. Ultimately, such provisions can have the effect of waiving subrogation because the other party claims insured status and the common law states that an insurer cannot recover from its own insured.
37 Provision of Insurance Clauses Insurance procurement provisions are generally enforceable, having been recognized in Florida as well as the 11th, 9th, 5th and 3rd circuits. A unilateral insurance procurement provision is enforceable. Tullier v. Halliburton Geophysical Servs. 81 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 1996). However, when a contract contains both an insurance procurement provision and an indemnity provision, the insurance limits under the procurement provision must first be exhausted for the indemnity provision to apply. Sonat Exploration v. Falcon Drilling, 85 F.Supp. 2d 649 (W.D. La. 1999).
38 Provision of Insurance Clauses When a party agrees to list the other contracting party as an additional insured, and fails to do so, a claim for breach of contract under general maritime law may proceed. Elevating Boats LLC v. Devon Louisiana Corp., 286 Fed. Appx. 118 (5th Cir. 2008). However, parties listed as an additional insured on a marine insurance policy generally can only recover insurance for liability stemming from incidents that arise from the common endeavor of the two parties. Saavedra v. Murphy Oil U.S.A., Inc., 930 F.2d 1104 (5th Cir. 1991).
39 Provision of Insurance Clauses Other maritime contracts require a contracting party to obtain a specific type of insurance in a specific amount naming the other party as a named insured. Failure to provide such for the other party under such a policy may not only give rise to a claim for breach of contract but also a claim for indemnity. Although not stating so explicitly, such an agreement may be construed as tantamount to defend and hold the other party harmless to a specified amount on the happening of certain events.
40 Provision of Insurance Clauses Such an undertaking is essentially what an insurer agrees to do for an insured. Accordingly, the other party, if they fails to provide the agreed insurance, may find themselves as the insurer/indemnitor up to the amount of the agreed insurance they failed to provide.
41 Validity of Risk Shifting Provisions
42 Validity of Risk Shifting Provisions The validity of risk shifting clauses in maritime contracts is governed by the General Maritime Law of the United States. Close scrutiny by courts to insure sufficient incentives against negligence. Courts balance these incentives against freedom of contract between parties with relatively equal bargaining power.
43 Validity of Risk Shifting Provisions Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., 349 U.S. 85 (1955). Towing contract provided a clause that towage was at the sole risk of the barge owner. Exculpation clause held contrary to public policy: Negligence is discouraged by making wrongdoers pay damages; and Towing companies can overreach where there is limited competition.
44 Limitations On Risk Shifting
45 Limitations On Risk Shifting Some Provisions Routinely Enforced: Provision of Insurance Indemnification Reciprocal Indemnity Waiver of Subrogation Some Provisions Receive Greater Scrutiny: Limitation of Liability: Moderate Level of Scrutiny Exculpatory Clauses: Significantly Greater Scrutiny
47 th 11 Circuit Limitations Valid Risk Shifting Provisions: Provision of Insurance Indemnification Reciprocal Indemnity Waiver of Subrogation Limitation of Liability Unenforceable Risk Shifting Provisions Wholly Exculpatory Clauses
48 th 5 Circuit Limitations Valid Risk Shifting Provisions: Provision of Insurance Indemnification Reciprocal Indemnity Waiver of Subrogation Limitation of Liability Unenforceable Risk Shifting Provisions Exculpatory Clauses
49 nd 2 Circuit Limitations Valid Risk Shifting Provisions: Provision of Insurance Indemnification Reciprocal Indemnity Waiver of Subrogation Limitation of Liability Exculpatory Clauses
50 th 9 Circuit Limitations Valid Risk Shifting Provisions: Provision of Insurance Indemnification Reciprocal Indemnity Waiver of Subrogation Limitation of Liability Exculpatory Clauses
51 Drafting Risk Shifting Clauses Risk Shifting Provisions General Requirements: Relative In Equality in Bargaining Power Writing Clear and Unambiguous
52 Drafting Risk Shifting Clauses Indemnity: Under federal maritime law, a contract of indemnity should be construed to cover all losses, damages, or liabilities which reasonably appear to have been within the contemplation of the parties. More strictly construed for losses not expressly identified or reasonably inferred. Corbitt v. Diamond M. Drilling Co., 654 F.2d 329, 333 (5th Cir.1081)
53 Gross Negligence Generally, both state and federal courts define gross negligence as a conscious disregard of a particularly foreseeable harm. Lobegeiger v. Celebrity, 2011 WL (S.D. Fla. 2011) Farrell v. Fisher, 578 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) Ambrose v. New Orleans, 639 So.2d 216 (La. 1994) Colnaghi v. Jewelers Prot. Serv., 81 N.Y.2d 821 (N.Y 1993) Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2007)
54 Gross Negligence Clauses limiting liability in any form will be inapplicable to acts of gross negligence under maritime law. Lykes Bros. SS. v. Waukesha Bearings Corp., 502 F.Supp (E.D. La. 1980). Pinpointing the exact meaning of gross negligence under federal admiralty law proves surprisingly difficult. Federal courts most often look to state law. Lobegeiger v. Celebrity, 2011 WL (S.D. Fla. 2011) See also Royal Ins., 194 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 1999)
55 Defenses to Enforcement Requirements for enforceable risk shifting provisions are not limited to Bisso concerns Provisions are also subject to traditional rules of contract interpretation
56 Rules of Construction Contra Proferentem Plain Meaning Ambiguities to be construed against the drafter. The meaning that a person of average intelligence, knowledge, and experience would deem reasonable. Definition/Description If a term is defined or described, that meaning is given to the term wherever it appears in the agreement, unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
57 Rules of Construction Custom and Usage Words have a technical meaning not ordinarily associated with common language. Extrinsic evidence (including opinion testimony) has been permitted to explain and interpret terms when the meaning depends on trade practice.
58 Response of Marine Insurers
59 Response of Marine Insurers The clear trend in the marine service industries is toward shifting risk away from the actor. The risks involved in an extensive yard period differ greatly from navigational risks. Has the marine insurance industry implemented responsive changes? New terms, conditions, and/or rates?
60 Response of Marine Insurers Historically, hull policies have had no coverage restrictions on yard periods or the work to be completed American Yacht Form R.12 Contains no provision regarding yard periods American Institute Hull Clauses Covers negligence of repairers May designate or veto a yard post casualty International Hull Clauses (Institute Time Clauses) Covers the negligence of repairers
61 Refit and Repair Clauses Reliance on uberrimae fidei is uncertain and requires policy provisions to protect insurers. Refit, Repair, and Hot Work Clause impose duties on the owner to: Notify the insurer of such work Insure adequate SRLL coverage Refrain from agreements impairing insurer rights
62 Exemplar Refit and Repair Clauses It is a condition of this Policy that You will, whenever the Vessel is Contracted to undergo any refit, repair or Hot Work: i. give notice to us in advance of arrival at yard or commencement of works (as applicable); ii. insure that the yard and/or other contractors carry current and operative liability insurance indemnifying the yard and/or others in respect of all liabilities towards You and the Vessel up to at least the lesser of the Insured Value of the Vessel or 5,000,000 (or equivalent) ( 2,000,000 in the case of other contractors), and provide evidence of such coverage to us in the form of a copy of the relevant valid insurance certificate or other evidence of coverage satisfactory to us; and iii. insure that the yard and/or other contractors impose no contractual exclusions or limitations of liability, nor any waiver or other limitations of our subrogated rights of recovery; provided that if we are given notice in accordance with (i) above, we may, at our discretion, waive (ii) and/or (iii) above on terms to be agreed
63 Other Hull Policy Restrictions
64 Other Hull Policy Restrictions Exclusion This insurance does not cover: Loss, damage or expense whilst under refit or repair other than normal maintenance. Any Hot Work during normal maintenance must be notified in advance.
65 Liability Cover for Marine Service Providers Traditionally, liability cover for marine service providers does not address risk shifting provisions. However, the actual risk assumed by the insurer can be dependent on risk shifting provisions in marine service contracts.
66 Liability Cover for Marine Service Providers
68 Conclusion Waiver of Subrogation: A clause in which a party, including an insured vessel owner, waives its insurer s right to seek amounts paid out for a loss from a third party. These clauses are generally enforceable. Exculpatory Clauses: A parties attempt to absolve itself from all liability. There is a split among U.S. circuits as to the enforceability of such clauses and they are heavily scrutinized. The 11th Circuit, following the Supreme Court s decision in Bisso, will not allow for total exculpation. Other jurisdictions allow such clauses, however, they must be unequivocal and unambiguous.
69 Conclusion Waiver of Subrogation: A clause in which a party, including an insured vessel owner, waives its insurer s right to seek amounts paid out for a loss from a third party. These clauses are generally enforceable. Exculpatory Clauses: A parties attempt to absolve itself from all liability. There is a split among U.S. circuits as to the enforceability of such clauses and they are heavily scrutinized. The 11th Circuit, following the Supreme Court s decision in Bisso, will not allow for total exculpation. Other jurisdictions allow such clauses, however, they must be unequivocal and unambiguous.
70 Conclusion Limitation of Liability: Instead of a total exculpation for liability, this clause institutes a cap on the damages recoverable, typically $300,000. These clauses are generally enforceable. Indemnification: A clause in which one party agrees to hold harmless and defend the other from any claims from third parties. These clauses are generally enforceable. Provision of Insurance: A provision where one party insures the other through its policy which limits the right to seek subrogation. The additional insured can only recover from incidents stemming from their common endeavor with the insured. These devices are generally enforceable.
71 Andy Anderson Miami Office 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 300 Miami, FL TELEPHONE: FAX: Fort Lauderdale Office 1500 Cordova Road Fort Lauderdale, FL TELEPHONE: FAX:
72 A Casualty Defense Litigation Firm Serving Clients Throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, New York, Boston and Florida. For more information about our attorneys, our practice areas, our offices and more, please visit our website:
Risk Shifting Provisions in Maritime Contracts Issues Considered Issues Considered Risk Shifting Provisions in Marine Service Contracts Validity of Risk Shifting Provisions Other Considerations of Validity
I. Introduction FLORIDA MARINA STORAGE AGREEMENTS AT A GLANCE Prepared by: Keith S. Brais, Esq. Brais & Associates, P.A. www.braislaw.com The purpose of this article to inform the reader about the interplay
Case 3:13-cv-00054 Document 120 Filed in TXSD on 05/04/15 Page 1 of 7 This case is being reviewed for possible publication by American Maritime Cases, Inc. ( AMC ). If this case is published in AMC s book
HOW TO DEFEAT AN EXCULPATORY CLAUSE: A STEP BY STEP GUIDE By Thomas M. Bond, Esq., Boston, MA Exculpatory or release from liability clauses limit or absolve a party from liability for its own negligence.
Marine Insurance Day October 5, 2012 Additional Insureds & Marine Insurance Joe Grasso and Michael Thompson 1 Agenda General Principles Case Studies Takeaways and Q&A 2 Named Insureds v. Additional Insureds
HOLD HARMLESS, INDEMNITY, SUBROGATION AND ADDITIONAL INSURED INSURANCE IN TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS By James W. Bryan Nexsen Pruet P.L.L.C. Greensboro, North Carolina 336-373-1600 firstname.lastname@example.org
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 94-41244. Jerry B. HODGEN; Bobby Sue Hodgen, Plaintiffs, v. FOREST OIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, FOREST OIL CORPORATION; Ronald J. Doucet, Defendants-Third
THIS AGREEMENT is made between Solstice Sailing, Inc., DBA, a Michigan Company of Traverse City, Michigan (,Solstice Sailing") and, Charterer" (Print Charterer Name here) RECITALS A. The vessel owner has
ST. AUGUSTINE SHIPYARD, LLC 255 Diesel Rd., St. Augustine, FL. 32084 Phone: (904)671-4288 www.staugustineshipyard.com Boat Storage Agreement This Boat Storage Agreement is made this, day of, 20, by between
Contractual Risk Allocation in a Post- Macondo Environment Michael A. Golemi William W. Pugh Willis 2012 North America Energy Conference May 16, 2012 A Professional Law Corporation New Orleans Lafayette
Case 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 SUMMIT CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v. CASE NO. 8:13-CV-295-T-17TGW
California Civil Code 2782.05 (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), provisions, clauses, covenants, and agreements contained in, collateral to, or affecting any construction contract and amendments
CONTRACT LIABILITY LANGUAGE FOR THE RISK MANAGER Brought to you by the Risk and Insurance Management Society of Pittsburgh and the Law Offices of Wayman, Irvin & McAuley, LLC www.waymanlaw.com 1 DISCLAIMER
Limitation of Liability By: Michael Clark email@example.com Limitation of Liability Clauses What is a limitations of liability clause Limitations of liability attempt to limit, define or eliminate
Premises Liability for Third Party Crime (Full Article) Owners and managers of commercial property (including leased residential properties) can be held liable under civil negligence claims for harm to
Will Deepwater Horizon Change a Long Standing Rule of Law? In re Deepwater Horizon, 710 F.3d 338 (5 th Cir. 2013, withdrawn on r hrg). r In re Deepwater Horizon, 728 F.3d 491 (5 th Cir. 2013). ACCIDENT
CALIFORNIA Strict Indemnity Language Contractor (Indemnitor) shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Authority, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all liability,
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT Rice Global E & C Roundtable Houston, Texas By Kerry C. Williams 2005 PROGRAM 1. Bases of Risk 2. Risk Management 3. Special Issues BASES OF RISK LEGAL BASES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY AND CONTRACTOR FOR GOODS AND SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, effective this 20th day of April in the year, 2015, between: MARTIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, a political subdivision
Tiara Condominium: The Demise of the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation and Impact on the Property Damage Requirement in a General Liability Policy By Heather Howell Wright, Bradley Arant
TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Definitions. Buyer means the person, corporation or other entity purchasing Products from Seller. Products means all goods and materials to be provided pursuant to this Sales Acknowledgment.
Indemnity and Risk Allocation: You Can t Always Get What You Want, But it s Good to Know How to Get What You Need William W. Pugh A Professional Law Corporation New Orleans Lafayette Houston 1 Overview
California Senate Bill 474 Impact on Owners & Contractors Beginning January 1, 2013, project owners, general contractors ( GC ), construction managers ( CM ) and any lower tier contractor who employs subcontractors
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 13-0670 444444444444 IN RE DEEPWATER HORIZON, RELATOR 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON CERTIFIED QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT
53 RD ANNUAL CONGRESS IN LONDON 2-5 SEPTEMBER 2015 MARINE INSURANCE DENYING COVER AS A MARINE INSURER: PLAIN SAILING OR DEAD IN THE WATER? A WORKSHOP ORGANIZED BY THE TRANSPORT LAW COMMISSION 1 QUESTIONNAIRE
United States Workers Compensation/Indemnification Overview January 18, 2012 Jill Kirila firstname.lastname@example.org Kevin Hess email@example.com 36 Offices in 17 Countries Workers Compensation
Terms and Conditions for Purchase Orders for Recycling Materials This Agreement is made by and between AEROJET-GENERAL CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation with a place of business at Rancho Cordova, California
Asbestos Liabilities: Jones Act Damages Limitations Should Be Extended To Nonemployer Product Supplier Defendants Chris M. Temple firstname.lastname@example.org 412.355.6343 y Jeffrey N. Kinsey email@example.com 412.355.8231
ACC Houston Chapter Meeting Indemnities and Insurance: Managing Risks Via Contracts in the Post-Macondo World April 9, 2013 Panelists Lisa Brown Managing Counsel, Oxy Permian Former outside counsel. Received
WHAT IS IT, HOW TO DEAL WITH IT, AND WHERE IS IT GOING? Moderator: Paul H. Leonard Policyholders view: Andrew M. Weiner Insurers view: Wallace C. Magathan, III First Party Hull Claims Third Party Passenger
In Defense of Insured Contracts July 2007 The term "insured contract" certainly sounds reassuring. As the definition of "insured contract" lists not only certain contracts or agreements (contract for the
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR LIABILITY INSURANCE The following are excerpts from Caltrans 2010Standard Specifications. Specifications are subject to change so refer to the project
DEMISE CHARTER AGREEMENT Bare Boat Charter This Charter Agreement entered into on this the day of, 20, between hereinafter referred to as the Owner and or their assignee (hereinafter referred to as the
May 2013 JONES DAY COMMENTARY California s New Subcontractor Defense Regime for Non-Residential Projects: Creating Order or Chaos? As explained in a recent Commentary (available at http://www.jonesday.com/navigating_treacherous_
What You Should Know About General Agreements of Indemnity and Why You Should Know It Summary When a contractor (for purposes of this discussion, contractor includes subcontractor) first seeks surety credit,
Certificate of Liability Insurance, Form ACORD25: Following are the insurance requirements of the State of Minnesota acting through its Board of Trustees of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities,
Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Houston, TX 1:30 2:45 p.m. DEEPWATER HORIZON INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE LESSONS LEARNED Presented by Julia M. (Adams) Palmer Member Gray Reed & McGraw, P.C. The Ranger v. Transocean
The following outlines the terms of service by and between the CLIENT (the "Owner") and Made Right Media (the "Designer"), of 720 W. Idaho St. #32, Boise, Idaho 83702. 1. Description of the Services. The
SHORT FORM STANDARD SUBCONTRACT This Agreement is made this day of, 20, between (Contractor) and (Subcontractor). The work described in Section I below shall be performed in accordance with the prime contract
Survey Says: The Feud Over Insurance and Indemnity Provisions in Business Contracts Indemnity and Insurance Provisions in Commercial Contracts Kenneth M. Gorenberg Stefan R. Dandelles Indemnity and insurance
Dear Valued Customer, Below is an overview of the Molex lease process as it applies to Molex Application Tooling equipment. Lease process: Molex does not offer leases for all of the equipment that we promote.
Slips With lifts, LLC Boat Slip Agreement and Rental License Agreement This License Agreement is made as of the day of the month of, 20 between Slips With Lifts, LLC ( Licensor, Management ) and with an
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:01 CV 726 DDN VENETIAN TERRAZZO, INC., Defendant. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Pursuant
A&E Briefings Structuring risk management solutions Spring 2012 Indemnification Clauses: Uninsurable Contractual Liability J. Kent Holland, J.D. ConstructionRisk, LLC Professional consultants are judged
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT LEASE AGREEMENT Please print and fax to: 281-842-9345 Stutes Enterprise Systems, Inc. ("Lessor"), located at 1426 Sens Rd #5, LaPorte, Texas 77571, leases to, ("Lessee"), located
YACHT LIABILITY INSURANCE KNOW YOUR COVER YACHTOWNERS YACHT LIABILITY INSURANCE KNOW YOUR COVER This Know your cover is intended to provide general guidance for our Yacht Liability Insurance policy. They
SYLLABUS FOR MARITIME PERSONAL INJURY AND DEATH Spring 2016 PROFFESSOR JOHN F. UNGER 1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES The objectives of this course are to teach the substantive law of the subject matter integrated
Indemnity Issues in Product Liability Claims arising from Construction Defect Litigation Recent Cases In a recent decision, the Texas Supreme Court held that a subcontractor is a "seller," under Tex. Civ.
Storage Space Occupancy Agreement NOTICE - THE MONTHLY OCCUPANCY CHARGES AND OTHER CHARGES STATED IN THIS AGREEMENT ARE THE ACTUAL CHARGES YOU MUST PAY. INSURANCE IS OCCUPANT'S RESPONSIBILITY. OCCUPANTS
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY CLAUSES NEW CASE DEVELOPMENTS By: Nicholas D. Siegfried Siegfried, Rivera, Lerner, De La Torre & Sobel, P.A. 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1102 Coral Gables, FL 33134 LIMITATION OF
SELLING TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. The Agreement. All sales by Sterling Machinery, Inc., an Arkansas corporation (the Seller ) to the purchaser of Seller s Goods (the Buyer ) shall be governed by the following
Deco Bike, LLC. 3301 NE 1 st Avenue, LPH-6 Miami, Florida TERMS AND CONDITIONS, RIDERS RELEASE OF LIABILITY & ASSUMPTION OF RISK INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS THIS IS A LEGAL AND BINDING AGREEMENT. RIDERS
Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Koontz, S.J. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE OPINION BY v. Record No. 100082 JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. April 21, 2011 ENTERPRISE LEASING
EQUIPMENT RENTAL AGREEMENT This Equipment Rental Agreement (herein after referred to as ERA ), together with any operating rules, policies, price schedules, or other supplemental documents expressly incorporated
COLORADO REVISED STATUTES Title 13. Courts and Court Procedure Damages Regulation of Actions and Proceedings Article 20. Actions Part 8. Construction Defect Actions for Property Loss and Damage Construction
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made the day December, 2015, between the County of Currituck (hereinafter County ) and, (hereinafter Contractor ). RECITALS County is a body corporate
2015-2016 SEASON MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION MEMBER INFORMATION: BACK TAG # ISSUED: MEMBER NAME: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: HOME PHONE: CEL #: E-MAIL ADDRESS: (Please send newsletter via: Mail E-Mail ) DATE
` SUBCONTRACTOR: PHONE PROJECT: LOCATION: Page 1 of 6 SUBCONTRACT (SHORT FORM) JOB NO.: COST CODE: PRICE: This agreement is made and effective, by and between SUN CONSTRUCTION & FACILITY SERVICES, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 03-21793-CIV-UNGARO-BENAGES/BROWN AMADO LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; NOEMI MONTES DE OCA, CHRIS MASTON, JOHN GARZON,
Revisiting The Duty to Defend After the Exhaustion of the Policy Limits Introduction The duty to defend and the duty to indemnify are distinct duties with the duty to defend wider in scope than the duty
Case: 14-60770 Document: 00513129690 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee United States Court of Appeals
p&i Gard s CGL offshore cover for supply vessels and specialist craft The purpose of the cover afforded by the Association is to make available a comprehensive insurance package to meet most of the liabilities
MEDICAL LIEN CONTRACT Date Patient Name Patient Date of Birth Date of Loss Payment to Provider: I, ( Patient ), hereby authorize and direct you ( Attorney ), to pay directly to ( Provider ) AND/OR TO ANY
Title XLV TORTS Chapter 768 NEGLIGENCE View Entire Chapter 768.28 Waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions; recovery limits; limitation on attorney fees; statute of limitations; exclusions; indemnification;
ATTACHMENT A.6 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ROUTINE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR PROJECTS Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types and in the amounts listed below. A. COMMERCIAL GENERAL AND UMBRELLA
2012 IL App (1st 112728-U FIRST DIVISION November 5, 2012 No. 1-11-2728 Notice: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
P.O. Box 889 394 NE Hemlock Redmond, OR 97756 BROKER AND CARRIER AGREEMENT All loads tendered by Central Oregon Truck Company ("Broker") and accepted for transportation by third party carriers ("Carrier")
2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 THIRD DIVISION NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent
Commercial Shipping and the Jones Act William H. Armstrong Armstrong & Associates LLP 1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 625 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 433 1830 (510) 433 1836 [fax] firstname.lastname@example.org William
SYMPHONY LEARNING LICENSE AND REMOTE HOSTED SERVICES AGREEMENT PLEASE READ THIS LICENSE AND REMOTE HOSTED SERVICES AGREEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEB SITE BY CHOOSING THE ACCEPT BUTTON YOU ARE (1)
Know Your Indemnity Obligation Know Your Risk Know Your Insurance Company by KEVIN R. CARLIN, ESQ. Roadmap Key Points to Take From This Presentation: Type I, Type II &Type III indemnity How to identify
14 TH ANNUAL RISK MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE THE LIFE OF AN ACCIDENT AND HOW TO HANDLE IT: CASE STUDY Mark Meyer Cal Burnton 1 POTENTIAL PARTIES (DEEP POCKETS) - Eastpointe Airport - owned airport - erected
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT (On Call Real Estate Broker Services) THIS AGREEMENT (Contract") is made this 14th day of December, 2010, between the Board of County Commissioners of Sumter County, Florida
STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into in the City of Modesto, State of California, this day of, 20, ( Effective Date ) by and between the CITY OF MODESTO, a municipal
USING CONTRACTORS? Managing Liability Risks Posed by Independent Contractors http://delvacca.acc.com Panel Jonathan H. Spergel, Esq. Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP Christopher D. Ball, Esq. Manko, Gold,
February 15, 2016 Professional Practice 544 Tort Law and Insurance Michael J. Hanahan Schiff Hardin LLP 233 S. Wacker, Ste. 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 312-258-5701 email@example.com Schiff Hardin LLP.
LEASE PARTIES The parties to this lease (Lease) are the state of North Dakota, acting through its (STATE), and having its principal place of business at (LANDLORD); SCOPE OF LEASE LANDLORD, in consideration
NEWCOMB TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS SHIPPER TERMS & CONDITIONS 1. APPLICABILITY These Terms & Conditions and agreed upon pricing documents apply to all broker services (the Services ) provided by Youbulk,
Limiting liability for professional firms Introduction Disputes can arise between providers of professional services and their clients or other (third) parties for a number of reasons. Limiting or excluding