(701) 225-5297 (701) 225-9650
2272 8th Street West

Dickinson, ND 58601
VISIT FIRM’S SITE

Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers of Dickinson, N.D., and two of its partners, Nicholas Grant and Paul Ebeltoft, obtained summary judgment for Travelers Property Casualty Company of America in a complex, multi-party coverage and indemnity case in the District of North Dakota, Judge Daniel Hovland, Star Insurance Company v. Continental Resources, Inc., et. al., Case No.:4:12-cv-121.  The case arose after personal injury claims were made following a well explosion. The decision from the federal court for the District of North Dakota reflects and strengthens a current trend in the Eighth Circuit, which is to look to the indemnity contract, and not solely the insurance policy, when resolving certain coverage questions.

The injured were employees of Cyclone Drilling, who was contracted to the well operator, Continental Resources, Inc.  (“Continental”). M-I, LLC (“M-I”), insured by Travelers, was the mud consultant and had a Master Service Contract (“MSC”) with Continental. Star instituted this action to determine the scope of the indemnity agreements between Continental and its contractors and the priority and limits of coverage provided by multiple insurers.

Star argued that, based on the Travelers policy issued to M-I  under which Continental qualified as an additional insured, Continental was entitled to defense and indemnity from Travelers and M-I and that the Travelers policy was primary. This conclusion was in direct conflict with the language of the MSC, which required Continental to defend and indemnify M-I, a duty Continental had accepted without reservation.

In granting summary judgment in favor of Travelers, the Court held that both the question of indemnity and which insurer is primary or excess was determined by applicable MSCs, not the language in the insurance policies.  The Court found that the MSC required Continental to indemnify M-I for the injuries sustained by Cyclone employees. Accordingly, Travelers and M-I had no duty to defend or indemnify Continental, nor to contribute to the settlement of the underlying injury claims.