Legal Opinion

Stephen Babineaux v. McBroom Rig Building Service, Inc. And North River Insurance Company, Intervenors-Appellees v. Reading & Bates Drilling Company

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided February 23, 1987No. 85-4886PublishedCited by 1 opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

1Per curiam

We affirmed the district court’s determination in this case that the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act (Anti-indemnity Act) barred Reading & Bates’ claim for indemnity-

Reading & Bates now argues in its petition for rehearing that the Anti-indemnity Act has only limited application. Reading & Bates argues that the Act does not affect the indemnity agreement to the extent that it requires McBroom to indemnify Reading & Bates for McBroom’s own negligence in injuring a McBroom employee. This argument is based on subsection B of the Anti-indemnity Act which provides:

B. Any provision contained in,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Robert Earl Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., Defendant-Third Party v. Oilfield Services of Cameron, Inc., Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
  2. Robert Earl Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., Defendant-Third Party v. Oilfield Services of Cameron, Inc., Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Stephen Babineaux v. McBroom Rig Building Service, Inc., and North River Insurance Company, Intervenors-Appellees v. Reading & Bates Drilling CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API