Texaco Exploration & Production, Inc. v. AmClyde Engineered Products Co.

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit June 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-31208

TEXACO EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, INC.; MARATHON OIL COMPANY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

AMCLYDE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

AMCLYDE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC.; UNITED DOMINION
INDUSTRIES, INC., formerly known as AMCA INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
formerly known as CLYDE DIVISION,

Defendants-Appellees.

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON, Each for its own self and
not one for the other, jointly and not severally and each
subscribing to Policy No. S611625 and each for its own self and
not one for the other, jointly and not severally and each
subscribed to Policy No. S611626; ET AL.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

AMCLYDE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, INC.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

AMCLYDE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, INC.; AMCLYDE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS
COMPANY, INC.; UNITED DOMINION INDUSTRIES INC., formerly known as
AMCA INTERNATIONAL CORP., formerly known as CLYDE DIVISION; J RAY
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL VESSELS, LTD.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court
 For the Eastern District of Louisiana

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED

for the limited purpose of amending the text in the panel opinion

issued on May 5, 2006. In the section of the panel opinion

entitled “Conclusion,” the following text is added as footnote 16

at the conclusion of the final sentence of the third paragraph,

Texaco amended its complaint to add as a defendant United
Dominion Industries, Inc., a party also named as an
AmClyde-related entity defendant in Underwriters’
subrogation action. The district court concluded that
United Dominion was not an “other assured,” and
accordingly Underwriters’ subrogation claim proceeded
against United Dominion. That claim and other attendant
issues are not properly before us, and this opinion
should not be construed as addressing such issues.
However, because we remanded Texaco’s products liability
claims, we similarly grant Underwriters’ request for
remand of its subrogation claims against United Dominion.
On remand, nothing in this opinion precludes Underwriters
from requesting proper allocation of United Dominion’s
uninsured defense costs in connection with these claims.

The foregoing amendment does not affect a substantive change

in the judgment of the Court contemplated by the original panel

opinion issued on May 5, 2006. Upon the filing of this order, the

mandate on the original panel opinion as amended by this order

SHALL ISSUE.

2