Liskow, in partnership with appellate attorneys at Wright Close & Barger, LLP, has secured a significant victory on behalf of Industrial Specialists, LLC (“ISI”) at the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas in Industrial Specialists, LLC v. Blanchard Refining Company LLC and Marathon Petroleum Company LP, which overturned a Galveston County District Court’s July 24, 2023 judgment that awarded in excess of $70 million to Marathon.
The case involved an action for contractual indemnity brought by Marathon against ISI for settlement payments made to resolve personal injury claims arising from a January 2016 fire during turnaround construction at Marathon’s Galveston Bay Refinery. After the fire, four separate lawsuits were filed by the injured employees asserting negligence claims against Marathon and other contractors on the jobsite. Those suits were consolidated in a multi-district litigation. ISI was not named as a defendant in the consolidated matter, but was designated as a responsible third party.
After purporting to settle all claims arising out of the January 2016 fire, and expressly excluding claims against ISI from the scope of its settlement, Marathon filed suit against ISI seeking contractual indemnification for the portion of its settlement payment that was not attributable to its own negligence. After a jury trial allocating fault for the underlying January 2016 fire took place in May 2023, the trial court issued a judgment for Marathon later that summer.
On appeal, ISI successfully argued that Marathon’s contractual indemnity claim requested a form of “comparative indemnity” that requires compliance with the express negligence doctrine. Because the parties’ indemnity provision did not expressly state that ISI would indemnify Marathon when Marathon’s concurrent negligence caused the liability, loss, or damage for which it sought indemnification, ISI argued that the indemnity provision was unenforceable as a matter of law.
The court of appeals agreed and held that Marathon’s request for—and the trial court’s award—of comparative indemnity was not contemplated by the parties’ agreement. Instead, the court concluded that “the plain language of the parties’ indemnity agreement unambiguously sets forth an ‘exclusion from liability for indemnification’ for liability, loss, or damage attributable to or caused by any negligence—sole, joint, concurrent, or otherwise—of Marathon.” Because the jury found that Marathon was found 38% responsible for causing the January 2016 fire—more than any other party—its request for indemnification was barred by the plain terms of the contract. Consequently, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Marathon and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of ISI.
The Liskow trial and appellate team was led by Michael Golemi and J.T. Kittrell, working alongside Wright Close & Barger, LLP as appellate counsel.