UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 95-31296
_____________________________________
AMERICAS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
APACHE CORPORATION, FALCON DRILLING COMPANY, INC.,
FALCON DRILLING SERVICES, INC. and FALCON MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(95-cv-863)
______________________________________________________
August 12, 1996
Before DAVIS, JONES and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in
its careful memorandum ruling of August 23, 1995, we affirm the
court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. In
summary we agree with the district court that Louisiana Civil Code
Article 3540 authorizes enforcement of the parties' choice-of-law
provision unless the application of that law conflicts with the
public policy of the state whose law would apply in the absence of
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
the choice-of-law provision. We agree with the district court's
analysis that Texas law would apply in the absence of the parties'
choice-of-law provision. Finally, we disagree with appellant that
Matte v. Zapata Offshore Co., 784 F.2d 628 (5th Cir. 1986),
requires a different result. In Matte, the accident and injury
occurred on the Outer Continental Shelf and the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act directed the application of Louisiana law. Id. at
630. Thus, the question was whether the application of the general
maritime law under the a choice-of-law provision violated the
public policy of the State of Louisiana. The court answered this
question in the affirmative because the general maritime law
included none of the prohibitions against indemnity agreements
Louisiana required in the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act. In
today's case, the question is whether the public policy of the
State of Texas is offended by the application of the choice-of-law
provision. The parties agree that answer to that question is in
the negative.
For the above reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2