Chapman v. Missouri Basin Well Service, No. 15-2103 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs Lenny and Tracy Chapman filed suit against Hiland after an explosion seriously injured Lenny, alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Hiland then filed a third-party complaint against Missouri Basin and B&B, seeking indemnification. In this appeal, Missouri Basin challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs and the district court's ruling on post-judgment motions. The Eighth Circuit held that honoring the Oklahoma choice-of-law provision in the Hiland Master Service Contract did not violate a fundamental public policy of North Dakota because it was not a motor carrier transportation contract under North Dakota law. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting plaintiffs' Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion where the district court clarified that by using the language "all amounts that have been paid or will be paid," Missouri Basin intended that it indemnify plaintiffs for the full amount of the settlement, including those amounts paid by Hiland's insurers. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Missouri Basin's Rule 59(e) motion.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Murphy, Circuit Judge, and Montgomery, District Judge] Civil Case - diversity. The district court's application of Oklahoma law rather the North Dakota law did not violate a fundamental public policy of North Dakota under N.D. Cent. Code sec. 22-01-10, because the relevant contract was not a motor carrier transportation contract. The district court did not clearly err in granting the Chapmans' Rule 59(e) motion by clarifying that the language "all amounts that have been paid or will be paid" included the amounts paid by Hiland and Hiland's insurers. The district court did not err in rejecting Missouri Basin's Rule 59(e) motion, as the motion was an impermissible attempt to raise new arguments that could have been raised earlier and, in any event, the rulings were not inconsistent. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 59(e) motions. The district court orders are affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.