IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________ m 00-30195 _______________ SONAT EXPLORATION COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS FALCON DRILLING COMPANY, INC., ET AL., Defendants, FALCON DRILLING COMPANY, INC.; INDEMNITY MARINE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS; STEAMSHIP MUTUAL UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION (BERMUDA), LTD., ALSO KNOWN AS P&I UNDERWRITERS; FDI MARINE, INC., ALSO KNOWN AS FALCON DRILLING, INC.; FALCON SERVICES COMPANY, INC., OF DELAWARE, DOING BUSINESS AS FALCON DRILLING COMPANY; YORKSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS; PHOENIX ASSURANCE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS; NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS; OCEAN MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS; SKANDIA MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY (UNITED KINGDOM), LTD., ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS; COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY, PUBLIC LIABILITY COMPANY, ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS;  THREADNEEDLE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS; TERRA NOVA INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., ALSO KNOWN AS CGL UNDERWRITERS, Defendants-Appellants. _________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (98-CV-2187) _________________________ December 29, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Under the contract, Sonat and Falcon cross- Circuit Judges. indemnified each other, and Falcon was further responsible for obtaining insurance for all PER CURIAM:* claims and contractual indemnities covered by the contract. This dispute regards the interpretation of various contractual provisions on cross- When an employee of a third-party indemnifications and insurance responsibilities. contractor was injured on the FalRig82, Sonat The parties disagree as to which of them is sued, seeking declaratory judgment that it is contractually obligated to pay for injury to an not required to indemnify Falcon in this employee of a third-party contractor incurred situation and that Sonat is an additional while performing work within the scope of the insured for all purposes under the general contract. liability insurance that Falcon is contractually required to purchase. Sonat Exploration Company, Inc. (“So- nat”), and Falcon Drilling Company, Inc. We have reviewed the briefs, the record, (“Falcon”), entered an offshore drilling and the applicable law and have heard and contract under which Falcon furnished Sonat considered oral arguments of counsel. We with the FalRig82, a jack-up drilling vessel conclude that the district court properly used to drill oil wells in navigable waters. entered summary judgment for Sonat on the basis that Sonat’s was the only reasonable in- terpretation of the contract. The court * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has decided that the contract requires Falcon to determined that this opinion should not be published maintain insurance for all the indemnities and is not precedent except under the limited covered by the contract, including those circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. indemnities that Sonat owes Falcon, and that 2 the contract requires that Sonat be an additional insured on the general commercial liability insurance purchased by Falcon. We therefore affirm, essentially for the reasons set forth by the district court in its comprehensive opinion of September 23, 1999, and in its ruling denying Falcon’s motion for new trial of January 26, 2000. AFFIRMED. 3