Hubert J. Dupre, Jr. v. Penrod Drilling Corporation, Defendant-Third Party v. Total Minatome Corporation, Third Party
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge:
This case raises the issue of whether a contract for the supply and use of a vessel for drilling, completing, and tying-back oil wells, is maritime or nonmaritime. Total Minatome Corporation (“Minatome”) and Penrod Drilling Corporation (“Penrod”) agree that if the contract is nonmaritime, it is governed by Louisiana law and its indemnity provision is unenforceable. The parties also agree that if the contract is maritime, then the indemnity provision of the contract is governed by Texas law, pursuant to a choice-of-law provision in the contract. Minatome contends…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Kossick v. United Fruit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Odie Joe Reid v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
- Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Construction Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1987
- Theriot v. Bay Drilling Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Hodgen v. Forest Oil Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
- Demette v. Falcon Drilling Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2002
- Reagan v. McGee Drilling Corp.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1997
- Demette v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- Wagner v. McDermott, Inc.District Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1994
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.