پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,573 |
| تعداد مقالات | 71,037 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 125,522,759 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 98,782,478 |
تحلیل محدودیت قانونی بر شروط پذیرش مسئولیت و جبران خسارت؛ بررسی موردی در صنعت نفتوگاز امریکا | ||
| مطالعات حقوق انرژی | ||
| دوره 9، شماره 2، بهمن 1402، صفحه 245-267 اصل مقاله (875.2 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jrels.2024.343732.496 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| محمود باقری* 1؛ محمدرضا سالاری2 | ||
| 1دانشیار گروه حقوق خصوصی و اسلامی، دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2دکتری حقوق نفت و گاز، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| درج شرط پذیرش مسئولیت و جبران خسارت در قراردادهای نفتی امری جاافتاده است. اما در کشور امریکا به‌رغم اینکه پذیرش مسئولیت ناشی از تقصیر امری قانونی است، در صنعت نفتوگاز به‌موجب قوانین ایالتی ممنوعیت‌های متعددی وضع شده است. برخی ایالات درج هرگونه شرط پذیرش مسئولیت نسبت به تقصیر و بیمه‌های دریافت‌شده دراین‌باره را باطل اعلام می‌نمایند و برخی دیگر، اصل را بر بطلان شروط مذکور قرار داده و صرفاً با محدودیت‌های بسیار شرط یا بیمه‌نامه را نافذ قلمداد می‌کنند. در نوشتة پیش‌رو، پس از بررسی وضعیت قانونی درج شرط پذیرش مسئولیت نسبت به تقصیر در امریکا و اهداف مدنظر قوانین ضدِشروط فوق در صنعت نفتوگاز، به‌صورت تحلیلی به رویکرد حاکم بر قوانین ضدِ پذیرش مسئولیت و جبران خسارت در ایالات نفتی امریکا ورود می‌کنیم؛ زیرا به‌رغم اینکه همة ایالات اهداف مشترکی را برای تصویب چنین قوانینی مدنظر داشته‌اند، وضعیت حقوقی شروط مذکور و بیمه‌نامه‌های این حوزه برحسب اینکه قانون‌گذار ایالتی رویکرد سهل‌گیرانه، سخت‌گیرانه یا متعادل داشته باشد، متفاوت از دیگری است. سرانجام، به این نتیجه خواهیم رسید که بهره بردن از رویکرد متعادل ضمن حصول اهداف قانون‌گذاران، محدودیت کمتری بر آزادی قراردادی در صنعت نفتوگاز اعمال کرده و با مقتضیات حاکم بر این صنعت نیز سازگارتر است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| بیمة مسئولیت؛ تقصیر؛ شرط پذیرش مسئولیت و جبران خسارت؛ قانون ضد پذیرش مسئولیت و جبران خسارت | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The Analysis of Legal Limitations on Indemnity Clause: The U.S. Oil and Gas Case Study | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mahmoud Bagheri1؛ Mohammad Reza Salari2 | ||
| 1Associate Profesor, Department of Private and Islamic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2Ph.D. Student in Oil and Gas Law/ Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction The indemnity clause is a key element in any industrial contract. The application of this clause results in the transfer of legal liabilities due to negligence from the indemnitee to the indemnitor, thereby allocating a significant portion of contractual risks. The use of indemnity clauses in oil and gas industry contracts is highly beneficial. However, in oil-producing states in the United States, including such clauses for negligence is subject to several legal restrictions. The primary goals of state legislators in applying these restrictions have been to eliminate bargaining power inequality between contracting parties and to promote safety considerations. However, adopting this approach in the oil and gas industry has long been contentious, as it complicates the process of contractual risk allocation, leads to contract uncertainty in the event of accidents, and increases the costs of lawsuits. The first part of this article describes anti-indemnity acts across various U.S. states. Generally, these acts can be divided into three categories: permissive, strict, and moderate. Method This article combines descriptive and analytical dimensions. In the first part, using a descriptive approach, we examine anti-indemnity acts in four U.S. oil-producing states: Wyoming, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Texas. Based on their legislative approaches, these laws are divided into three categories: permissive, strict, and moderate. In the second part, taking an analytical perspective, we examine these legislative approaches and analyze the effects of each act on oil and gas industry contracts. Results Although permissive acts initially void indemnity clauses, it is still possible to obtain an insurance policy covering the negligence of the parties to the contract. Through this legal loophole, indemnity is effectively replaced by insurance, achieving the same effect as an indemnity clause. Conversely, strict-approach acts are incompatible with the requirements of the oil and gas industry, as they prevent parties from using any contractual mechanism to assess and allocate risks, leading to an increase in lawsuits and a lack of comprehensive contractual protection in accidents. The Marcel exception in Louisiana also proves inadequate due to its uncertainty and ambiguity. In legal disputes, differing interpretations of the exception can lead to outcomes that diverge from established precedents. Consequently, in Louisiana, it is plausible that parties obtain insurance policies based on the Marcel exception, only for the court to declare them void and unenforceable. In contrast, the Texas anti-indemnity act, while using a moderate approach, avoids the ambiguities found in Louisiana’s legal system. This act specifically caps insurance coverage for negligence. According to Texas law, if the indemnity is unilateral, the insurance cap is limited to $500,000. If the indemnity is mutual, the cap is based on the mutual coverage of both parties. Conclusion The enactment of anti-indemnity laws regarding negligence has consistently faced opposition from U.S. oil and gas exploration and production companies. From their perspective, pre-accident risk allocation is a core requirement for oil and gas operations. Overly restrictive laws hinder this process, potentially causing significant harm to the industry. Meanwhile, state lawmakers increasingly aim to limit indemnity clauses. Today, the invalidation of indemnity clauses extends beyond the oil and gas sector to industries like construction. The most desirable way to resolve this conflict appears to be adopting a moderate approach. Legislation should aim to address issues such as balancing bargaining power and promoting safety while also preserving some contractual freedom for the parties. In this respect, Texas law provides an exemplary model. Mixed methods research This research implements Mixed methods research by an embedded design. From a quantitative point of view, it is worth mentioning that as of right now, invalidation of indemnity clauses extends beyond the oil and gas sector to industries like construction in 38 U.S. states. On the other hand, qualitative data indicates that in the permissive approach, indemnity clauses for negligence are void, but obtaining insurance is allowed. Currently, Wyoming adopts this permissive approach. In the strict approach, not only is the use of indemnity clauses prohibited, but any related insurance policy is also void. New Mexico is one state that follows the strict approach. In contrast, the moderate approach declares the indemnity clause void but allows insurance policies under specific conditions. The Marcel exception, based on precedent in Louisiana, and the insurance policy ceiling in Texas are examples of this moderate approach. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Anti-indemnity statute, Indemnity clause, Liability policy, Negligence | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
منابع
ابراهیم‌پور اسنجان، عادل؛ ابراهیمی، سیدنصرالله؛ باقری، محمود (1395). «تحلیلی بر شرط پذیرش مسئولیت و جبران خسارت (موردکاوی قراردادهای نفتوگاز)». پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، دورة 20، شمارة 3، ص26-1. در: https://clr.modares.ac.ir/article-20-10742-fa.html (10 بهمن 1400)
ابراهیمی، سیدنصرالله؛ غلام‌دخت، سمیرا (1399). «شرط پذیرش مسئولیت یا جبران خسارت (INDEMNITY)، با تأکید بر قراردادهای بالادستی صنعت نفتوگاز». دوفصلنامة تخصصی حقوق قراردادها و فناوری‌های نوین، دورة اول، شمارة 2، ص105-81. https://doi.org/10.22133/clj.2021.252370.1035
بادینی، حسن؛ دیلمی، شیوا (1397). «شرط تضمین پرداخت خسارت». فصلنامة مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، دورة 48، شمارة 3، ص452-435.
باقری، محمود؛ ابراهیم‌پور اسنجان، عادل (1396). «تحلیلی بر روابط شرط پذیرش مسئولیت و جبران خسارت و انتقال آن به بیمه‌گر». فصلنامة مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، دورة 47، شماره 4، ص608-589.
References Alton P. Knapp V. Chevron USA Inc., 781 F.2d 1123, Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 1986. Badini, Hassan; Deilami, Shiva (2018). “Indemnity Clause”. Private Law Studies Quarterly, 48(3), pp. 435-452. https://doi.org/10.22059/jlq.2018.241694.1006939 [in Persian]. Bagheri, Mahmoud; Ebrahimpoor Asanjan, Adel (2017). “An Analysis of the Interactions of Accepting Liability/ Compensation with Conveying It to the Insurer”. Private Law Studies Quarterly, 47(4), pp. 589-608. https://doi.org/10.22059/jlq.2017.208063.1006749 [in Persian]. Bhagwati, Jagdish N. (2002). Free Trade Today. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Ebrahimi, Seyed Nasrollah (2010). Mandatory Rules and Other Party Autonomy Limitations in International Contractual Obligations. Tehran, Majd. Ebrahimi, Seyed Nasrollah; Gholamdokht, Samira (2020). “Indemnity clause (with Emphasis on Upstream Oil and Gas Contracts)”. Modern Technologies Law, 1(2), pp. 81-105. https://doi.org/10.22133/clj.2021.252370.1035 [in Persian]. Ebrahimpoor Asanjan, Adel; Ebrahimi, Seyed Nasrollah; Bagheri, Mahmoud (2016). “An Analysis about Indemnity Clauses: Case Study: Oil and Gas Contracts”. Comparative Law Researches, 20(3), pp. 1-26. Available at: http://clr.modares.ac.ir/article-20-10742-fa.html (Accessed 30 January 2022) [in Persian]. Fruge Corry, Katherine (2021). “Removing the Risk from Risk Allocation: Reforming Louisiana’s Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act”. Louisiana Law Review, 81(3), pp. 1038-1076. Available at:https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol81/iss3/13(A(Accessed 12 September 2022). Gwyn, Allen Holt; Paul E. Davis (2003). “Fifty-State Survey of Anti-Indemnity Statutes and Related Case Law”. Construction Lawyer, 23(3), pp. 26-33. Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/conlaw23&div=36&id=&page (Accessed 20 September 2022). Hlaing, Zar Chi (2018). “Contract of Indemnity”. Journal of Myanmar Academy of Arts and Science, 16(8), pp. 219-237.at: http://www.maas.edu.mm/Research/download_details.php?id=268 (5 August 2022). Hodgen V. Forest Oil Corp., 87 F.3d 1512, Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 1996. Kehoe, G. Roth II. (1995-1996). “Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act: A Necessary Limit to Contract Freedom or Paternalism for Roughneck Contracts”. Tulane Law Review, 70(4), pp. 1097-1138.at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/tulr70&div=48&id=&page (Accessed 17 August 2022). Lexington Ins. Co. V. Precision Drilling Co., 830 F. 3d1219, Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, 2016. Louisiana Revised Statutes, Title 9:2780- Certain Indemnification Agreements Invalid. Lowe, John S. (1987). “Analyzing Oil and Gas Farmout Agreements”. Southwestern Law Journal, 41(3), pp. 759-868. at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol41/iss3/2/ (Accessed 17 August 2022). Meyers, Robert L. III; Debra A. Perelman (1989). “Risk Allocation through Indemnity Obligations in Construction Contracts”. South Carolina Law Review, 40(4), pp. 989-1002. at:https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr/vol40/iss4/8/ (Accessed 1 November 2022). New Mexico Statutes, Chapter 56.7- Indemnity Agreements. Pugh, William W. (2019). “Indemnity Provisions and Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Acts: A Primer, and Louisiana/Texas Comparison”. Annual Institute on Mineral Law, 66, pp.116-198. at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/mineral66&div=10&id=&page (Accessed 2 November 2022). Quay, Jeanette H.; Lynn M. Luker (1998). “Transferring Risk by Contractual Indemnity: A View from Oil an Energy”. Defense Counsel Journal, 65, pp. 371-388. at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/defcon65&div=59&id=&page(Accessed 18 November 2022). Stein, Steven G. M.; Shorge K. Sato (2007). “Advanced Analysis of Contract Risk-Shifting Provisions: Is Indemnity Still Relevant”. Construction Lawyer, 27(4), pp. 5-50. at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/conlaw27&div=37&id=&page (18 November 2022). Tade, Jeanmarie Brock (1987). “The Texas and Louisiana Anti-Indemnity Statutes as Applied to Oil and Gas Industry Offshore Contracts”. Houston Law Review, 24(4), pp. 665-716. at:https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hulr24&div=43&id=&page (Accessed 18 November 2022). Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Section 127.003- Agreement Void and Unenforceable. Westbrook, Jay Lawrence (2015). “Commercial Law and the Public Interest”. Penn State Journal of Law and International Affairs, 4(1), pp. 445-458. at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/pensalfaw4&div=23&id=&page (Accessed 1 December 2022). Whiley V. Offshore Painting Contractors Inc., 711 F.2d 602, Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 1983. Wielinski, Pat; Kyle Gooch; Conor Bateman (2003). “Express Indemnity Clauses in Texas and throughout the United States: Held Harmless, or Held Up?”. Construction Law Journal, 1(2), pp. 5-42. at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/constlj1&div=15&id=&page (Accessed 23 December 2022). Wyoming Statutes, Section 30.1.131- Provisions for Indemnity in Certain Contracts; Invalidity. Zulhafiz, Wan M.; Nasarudin Bin Abdul Rahman (2020). “Unfair Risk Allocation in Oil and Gas Upstream Service Contracts in Malaysia: The Necessity for Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act”. International Journal of Business and Society, 21(1), pp. 177-191. at: http://www.ijbs.unimas.my/images/repository/pdf/Vol21-S1-paper13.pdf (Accessed 17 December 2022). | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 125 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 133 |
||
سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب