Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Transocean Enterprise, Inc. v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc.

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided March 11, 2010No. 2008-CA-01823-SCTPublished

1Concurrence

GRAVES, Presiding Justice, specially concurring:

¶ 13. Finally, the majority reaches the right result in this case. But, alas, it is for the wrong reason. While I agree that this Court should not consider the applicability of Section 31-5-41 and that Ingalls is entitled to indemnity, I am compelled to explain the reasons for my agreement.

¶ 14. The majority states: “Transocean seemingly has a duty to indemnify Ingalls. This duty, however, arguably could be voided by Mississippi Code Section 31-5-II to the extent that the indemnity provision in the Shipyard Agreement provides for indemnification…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Howard v. Estate of Harper Ex Rel. HarperMississippi Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Burleson v. LathemMississippi Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Pass Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. WalkerMississippi Supreme Court · 2004
  4. MISS. DHS v. GuidryMississippi Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Continental Turpentine & Rosin Co. v. Gulp Naval Stores Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1962

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API