Anderson v. Benson Power, LLC

Background

Benson Power, LLC owned the Benson Power Plant, and NAES operated it. Mechanical Systems, Inc. was hired to repair an inlet damper in Baghouse B. Jeffrey C. Anderson, a Mechanical Systems employee and crew foreman, was welding at the plant on December 6, 2017, when ash fell from the spray dryer absorber and killed him.

NAES filed a third-party complaint against Mechanical Systems. It alleged negligent operations, including negligent training and supervision; sought contribution if NAES were found liable to the plaintiff; and asserted contractual claims involving indemnity, insurance coverage, defense costs, and waiver of subrogation. Benson Power had previously been dismissed from the case based on the parties’ stipulation.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the summary-judgment standard, under which judgment is proper when no genuine dispute exists about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Negligent training. The court held that Minnesota law does not recognize an independent claim for negligent training and dismissed that claim. The court also concluded that NAES had not shown evidence that Mechanical Systems inadequately trained Anderson or Summer Mattingly, the confined-space attendant and fire watch. The record showed that both had received confined-space training, and the evidence did not show that the training fell below the applicable standard of care. The court also found no evidence that Mattingly was negligently positioned while performing her duties.

Negligent supervision. The court granted summary judgment on this claim because NAES identified no evidence that Mechanical Systems negligently supervised Anderson or Mattingly. The court noted that there was no evidence Mechanical Systems failed to enforce its confined-space training or knew that its employees were violating company policy. The testimony did not establish that Mattingly had to be stationed at a particular one of the two entrances to the confined space.

Contractual indemnity. Assuming without deciding that the purchase order applied to NAES and Mechanical Systems, the court held that its indemnity provision covered damages caused by Mechanical Systems’ negligent acts or omissions. Because the court granted summary judgment on the negligence claims and NAES identified no other negligence by Mechanical Systems, the court held that Mechanical Systems had no obligation to indemnify NAES under that provision.

Agreement to provide insurance. The court held that the purchase-order language requiring Mechanical Systems to name NAES as an additional insured did not clearly and unmistakably require insurance covering NAES for claims based on NAES’s own negligence. The court therefore granted summary judgment on NAES’s claim that Mechanical Systems breached an agreement to provide insurance for NAES’s defense and indemnification in this lawsuit.

Waiver of subrogation. The court stated that the alleged failure to obtain a waiver of subrogation appeared to be a possible defense to Mechanical Systems’ counterclaim for increased premiums and possible costs or attorney’s fees, or to a future lawsuit by Mechanical Systems’ insurer. The court did not identify an existing, ripe claim against Mechanical Systems on that issue.

Disposition

The court granted Mechanical Systems, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment on NAES Corporation’s Third-Party Complaint against Mechanical Systems, Inc. The opinion does not state a separate disposition of Mechanical Systems’ counterclaim.