Walmart Master Services Agreement

Essentially, AGCS is asking the Tribunal to hold the MSA between Wal-Mart and Sealand as a construction contract in order to cancel the MSA compensation plan and the additional insurance provision in the insurance policy. The Court finds that the MSA and the ballast replacement application do not constitute a «work market» as defined and envisaged by the ACAIS. The MSA anticipates that Sealand Wal-Mart will protect, defend, maintain and compensate for lawsuits, claims, claims, claims, costs and expenses resulting from Sealand`s services. Through MSA, Sealand and Wal-Mart entered into a service agreement under which Sealand entered into service contracts with Wal-Mart. In connection with a service request to Sealand von Wal-Mart, an accident occurred, resulting in bodily harm and the death of a Sealand employee at a Wal-Mart store in Lake Charles, Louisiana. AGCS provided Sealand with a general insurance policy that provided Personal and Property Injury Insurance coverage to Sealand from February 20, 2016 to February 20, 2017. The policy contained additional insurance which states that «this policy includes, as additional policyholders, any person or organization to which the designated insured has contracted or covered contract.» Under a Master Services Agreement (MSA), Sealand, as a designated insured of the GATS-Police, agreed to maintain insurance coverage and designate Wal-Mart as well as all subsidiaries and related businesses as additional insured, including defence. In its response to the third-party request, Sealand refused to defend Wal-Mart`s defenders, compensate them and keep them unscathed. The Tribunal finds that the MSA is not a construction contract or a work contract within the meaning of the explicit language of Arkansas` status, since the MSA and the employment contract were not a building construction function, but the maintenance of a ballast. Wal-Mart also argues that Arkansas` anti-compensation status does not apply to the cancellation of an MSA provision because it is not a «construction contract» and because both a «construction contract» and a «construction contract» exclude an insurance contract, a construction obligation or a defense contract from a party against liability.

The Court finds that the Arkansas law applies to the MSA and that the Arkansas Anti-Indemnity Statute does not apply to the MSA, since it is not a construction contract or construction contract, as required by the statute. Accordingly, the Court finds that GATS has not demonstrated that it must rule in its favour or that Wal-Mart is not an additional insurance under AGCS general liability insurance. The request for summary judgment is denied. AGCS argues that Louisiana law governs the MSA because it is a «construction contract» within the meaning of the LCAIS. The GATS asserts that Louisiana`s strong public interest also denies the choice of the MSA law. Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2780.1 provides: XIII and Third Defense, Answer to Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC`s and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. third Party Demand.

Posted by | View Post | View Group

You can't leave comments on this post but you can leave a trackback here: