Edwards v. Pepsi-Cola Company

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
October 11, 2007
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
SAM UEL D . ED W ARD S,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 06-7036
(D.C. No. 04-CV-96-W )
PEPSICO , INC., a North Carolina (E.D. Okla.)
corporation,
Defendant,
Cross-Claimant,
Cross-D efendant,
Third-Party-Plaintiff-
Appellee,
PEPSI-COLA COM PANY, a N orth
Carolina corporation,
Defendant,
Cross-Claimant,
Cross-Defendant-
Appellee,
B.W . SINCLAIR, INC., a Texas
corporation,
Defendant,
Cross-Defendant,
Cross-Claimant,
Third-Party-Plaintiff-
Appellant.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before H E N RY and A ND ER SO N, Circuit Judges, and BROR BY, Senior Circuit
Judge.
This diversity action arises from injuries sustained by Samuel D. Edwards
when, at his place of employment, he reached into a jam med machine with his
dominant hand to ascertain the cause of the jam. M r. Edwards lost two fingers
and a third was severed. He subsequently brought suit against multiple
defendants, asserting claims for manufacturer’s product liability, negligence, and
recklessness. Judgment was entered on a jury verdict— as is relevant to this
appeal— in favor of plaintiff Edwards and against defendant PepsiCo, Inc.,
defendant Pepsi-Cola Company (collectively, Pepsi), and defendant B.W .
Sinclair, Inc. (Sinclair). Pepsi and Sinclair’s cross-claims for indemnity and
contribution, having been previously bifurcated from the trial, remained
outstanding. The district court then instructed Pepsi and Sinclair to file their
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. After reviewing the post-trial
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
-2-
submissions and all of the evidence presented at trial, including live testimony,
depositions, exhibits, and stipulations of the parties, the court entered findings of
fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). Applying the
substantive law of New York, which the parties agree is applicable to the
warranty and indemnity provision at issue (referred to as the “Pepsi Terms”), the
district court ruled in favor of Pepsi on its claim for contractual indemnity.
Sinclair appeals that decision, asserting that the Pepsi Terms do not clearly show
the parties’ “unmistakable intent” that Sinclair w ould indemnify Pepsi for its
“own [proportional] share of fault assessed by the jury;” consequently, argues
Sinclair, the district court erroneously granted judgment in favor of Pepsi. Aplt.
Opening Br. at 7; see also id. at 24.
Our jurisdiction in this diversity case arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Because the interpretation of a contract is a question of law in New York, our
review is de novo. See Gulf Ins. Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co.,
788 N.Y.S.2d 44, 45 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004); see also Salve Regina Coll. v.
Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 231 (1991) (concluding “that a court of appeals should
review de novo a district court’s determination of state law”).
The district court provided a detailed summary of the facts and procedural
history involved in this case, and we need not restate that material here. Having
reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law pursuant to the
above-mentioned standard, we hold that Sinclair has not identified any reversible
-3-
error in this case. W e therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for
substantially the same reasons stated in its order dated M arch 26, 2006.
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-4-