$5 million – $5 million
September 16, 2024In Century Surety Co. v. Colgate Operating, LLC:
- The parties’ contract required Colgate (an oil well operator) and Triangle (a consultant) “to purchase indemnity insurance with limits the lesser of (1) ‘not less than $5 million’, or (2) ‘the maximum amount which may be required by law, if any, without rendering this mutual indemnification obligation void, unenforceable or otherwise inoperative.'”
- Clause 2 referred to a potential legislative restriction on indemnity agreement that didn’t come to pass.
- The district court say Clause 1 as setting a ceiling but not a floor on the indemnity obligation, but the Fifth Circuit saw the clause as setting both: “At heart, Century’s position assumes that Colgate set out a $76 million dollar indemnity obligation without clearly saying so in the contract by virtue of policies that Colgate acquired years after it had entered into the [contract].”
No. 23-50530 (Sept. 10, 2024).