MEC&F Expert Engineers : 12/09/14

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

STATOIL’S LNG PLANT AT THE SNØHVIT GAS FIELD STOPS AFTER A SECOND GAS LEAK THIS YEAR



Statoil’s LNG Plant at the Snøhvit gas field stops after a second gas leak this year




Statoil's LNG plant on Melkøya had to shut down production due to a second gas leak.  No other information is available at this time.   Statoil had been forced to shut down production from its Melkøya LNG plant in northern Norway after a gas leak in January of this year.

Statoil's LNG plant on Melkøya had been working uninterruptedly for 185 days before it had to shut down production due to the January 2014 gas leak.

Location
The January 2014 leak occurred on Sunday evening due to a pump failure at the processing facility that produces LNG of the natural gas from the Snøhvit gas field in the Barents Sea in Hammerfest, Norway.  The plant was shut down and the system was depressurized, Finnmarken writes.

Production had not started up again on Tuesday morning and the company is still working to solve the technical problems.

Before the stop on Sunday, Statoil had 185 days of uninterrupted production at the plant.  That was the best six months at the plant since it opened in 2007.  Statoil’s LNG plant on Melkøya was closed in the month of May 2014 for turnaround.

_________________________________________________________________________
January 13, 2012: Norway: Statoil Halts Production from Snohvit Offshore Field Due to LNG Plant Problems



On Wednesday afternoon, Statoil temporarily shut down production at its LNG plant at Melkøya outside Hammerfest following rupture of a fire water line.

The fire water unit is part of the plant’s safety system, and Statoil implemented a controlled production shut down.  A water leakage at the rupture site has excavated some of the soil at the site of the leak.

“We are working to clarify the cause of the water leakage and preparing the repair work, so that we can resume production quickly,” says Øivind Nilsen, production director for Hammerfest LNG.

Hammerfest LNG receives gas from the Snøhvit field and production from the field will be halted until the safety systems are back in operation. Statoil said it was too early to say anything about the duration of the production halt. Statoil’s share of production from Snøhvit is 48,000 barrels of oil equivalents per day.

The fire water unit is regularly tested and inspected, most recently in the early hours of Wednesday morning this week.

Snøhvit is the first offshore development in the Barents Sea. Without surface installations, this project involves bringing natural gas to land for liquefaction and export from the first plant of its kind in Europe and the world’s northernmost liquefied natural gas facility.


______________________________________________________________
Statoil Shuts Down LNG Plant after Gas Leak
Posted on January 9, 2014



Statoil has shut down its Snøhvit LNG plant on the island of Melkøya, Norway, due to a gas leak, according to reports.
News agency Reuters quoted a spokesman saying that LNG plant was shut down Sunday but that a resumption of production was expected “fairly soon”.
The Snøhvit LNG plant has been shut down several times since it came onstream in September 2007.

In May 2013, it was shut down, with personnel being removed to a safe area, following a smoke alert. In June 2012 it was shut down for a week following a rupture to a firewater line at the plant.

The Melkøya plant receives gas from the Snøhvit field in the Barents Sea, with Statoil’s share of production amounting to approximately 48,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day.

 ____________________________________________________________

'Fatality risk' in Snohvit leak



Sounding alarm: PSA over leak at Snohvit plant

 15 May 2014 12:02 GMT 

A gas leak at the Statoil-operated Snohvit LNG plant in northern Norway earlier this year posed an  explosion risk and could have resulted in loss of life, according to the country’s safety agency PSA to probe Snohvit leaks.

A gas leak that resulted in a three-day shutdown at Statoil’s Snohvit LNG plant in northern Norway earlier this week is to be investigated by the country’s Petroleum Safety Authority (PSA).

 __________________________________________________________________

Snoehvit LNG ready to banish shutdowns this year-Statoil


                       Plant beset by unexpected shutdowns since start in 2007

Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:00am EDT

Snoehvit expected to be more reliable after latest repairs


HAMMERFEST, Norway, April 25 (Reuters) - Major work at Norway's Snoehvit liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant will mean a stoppage-free year when it reopens this month, ending a reputation for unreliability, a Statoil senior executive said.

The plant has been beset by technical faults that led to several production stoppages in 2012, the most recent of which was a gas leak in February that caused an evacuation.
Europe's only LNG-producing plant, on Melkoeya island at Europe's northernmost tip, will restart production within a week, a maintenance officer at the plant told Reuters on Monday, after being shut since February.

"We plan no new turnaround shutdowns for this year," Oeivind Nilsen, production vice-president for Hammerfest LNG said in an interview.

The plant, which can produce 4.3 million tonnes per year (mtpa) of super-cooled gas per year for transport by ship to markets in Europe, the United States and Asia, has suffered from long outages in the past.

"The regularity of the Snoehvit plant for the last three years has been in the order of 73 percent, and that, of course, is not acceptable," Nilsen said.

"Compared to other LNG plants in the world we need to make a significant step-up in regularity."

Nilsen said Statoil had made the plant more robust, and the latest modifications were expected to increase the number of days per year it operates.

"I think, it will lift regularity by 10 percent if we only solve the problem with the pre-treatment facility," Nilsen said.

The February gas leak was detected inside the "cold box", where cryogenic heat-exchangers are arranged together with the piping, with empty spaces filled with insulation material.

"When we experienced the gas leakage in the "cold box" we knew that it would result in a long shutdown due to difficult access and extensive pre-work," said Nilsen.
"But this also gave us a golden opportunity to move forward remedies we actually planned for the next year."

READY MADE DELIVERY
Several critics blame Snoehvit's design for its long shutdowns as the plant was delivered on a barge as a finished product, instead of having been built on-site.

In order to transport it on the ship, the size was reduced, leaving not much space between the components, and making fixing faults more difficult than at the other plants.
"When Snoehvit was developed we were crossing frontiers, both geographically, being the first in the Barents Sea, and also technology-wise," Nilsen said.

The plant also uses an unique gas liquefaction technology, the Mixed Fluid Cascade (MFC), developed together by Statoil and Germany-based engineering company Linde AG. Most LNG plants use liquefaction technology developed by Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
New elements included gas production with subsea templates controlled from onshore some 150 km away, sea water cooling, and re-injecting carbon dioxide stripped from the feed gas back to a subsea reservoir.

Statoil has a 36.79 percent stake in the Snohevit licence, with state-owned Petoro 30 percent, Total 18.4 percent, GDF Suez 12 percent and RWE Dea 2.81 percent.
Last year Statoil and partners decided against a second processing unit, or train, at Snoehvit, partly because there was not enough gas reserves to justify it.
"I think that new gas discoveries in the Barents Sea will trigger coming back to discussions about the second train," Nilsen said, adding that it was unlikely to happen this year as the focus of exploration in the Barents Sea was oil.

Gas production from the field, which started in 2007, totalled 4.7 bcm in 2012, up from 4.3 bcm in 2011, but lower than the peak of 4.9 bcm in 2010.


Schlumberger Ltd, the World's main oilfield services provider drastically reducing size of marine seismic fleet

Schlumberger Ltd, the World's main oilfield services provider drastically reducing size of marine seismic fleet

Schlumberger Ltd, the world's No.1 oilfield services provider, said it was reducing the size of its marine seismic fleet to lower costs as it expects customers to cut exploration spending.
 
 


December 9th, 2014
Schlumberger said it would take a charge of 800 million dollars to write down the value of six vessels and other WesternGeco assets in the fourth quarter ending December.
Oil and gas producers, Schlumberger's customers, have scaled back spending plans due to a 40% fall in oil prices over the past six months.


Analysts expect exploration spending, in particular, to be hit hard as oil and gas producers are unlikely to invest in new fields as long as prices remain low.
Schlumberger's fleet of vessels come with seismic equipment that help exploration companies survey potential oilfields.


The company said it would reduce its fleet to nine survey and six source vessels by the end of the year, from 15 survey and eight source vessels at the end of 2013.
Schlumberger said it plans to retire older vessels with lower towing capacity and higher operating costs, convert lower-end vessels to source boats, and cancel most of the leases on vessels it has hired.


The company's stock has fallen 18% in the past six months as oil price fell.
Source: Merco Press

12-9-2014 - SOME MINOR FLOODING IS REPORTED IN NEW JERSEY, NY AND CT FROM TODAY'S POWERFUL STORM

12-9-2014  - SOME MINOR FLOODING IS REPORTED IN NEW JERSEY, NY AND CT FROM TODAY'S POWERFUL STORM


MILLSTONE RIVER AT GRIGGSTOWN




MAHWAH RIVER AT SUFFERN




HOUSATONIC RIVER AT STEVENSON


 



HOUSATONIC RIVER AT GAYLORVILLE, CT 














TEXAS MAN’S BODY FOUND AT FOOT OF PUMPJACK IN SOUTH MIDLAND, TEXAS. HE FELL OFF THE PUMPJACK TO HIS DEATH.



Texas MAN’S BODY Found At Foot Of PumpJack In South Midland, TEXAS.  HE FELL OFF THE PUMPJACK TO HIS DEATH.












December 9th, 2014



A 21-year-old Midland man was found dead Monday morning at the foot of a pumpjack on an oil lease on South County Road 1160, and the cause of death is thought to be accidental, according to a press release from the Midland County Texas 79706 Sheriff’s office.





Sheriff’s investigators -- who were summoned by an oilfield worker --determined that Jonathan Brazell climbed on the pumpjack and then fell to the ground, according to the release.



While alcoholic beverages were found at the scene, it is not known if alcohol contributed to Brazell’s death, according to the release. An autopsy will be conducted




DIESEL SPILLS INTO KINGSPORT, TN CREEK BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS NOT PRESENT AND THE FUEL PUMP FAILED TO SHUT-OFF



Diesel spills into Kingsport, TN creek




December 9th, 2014 12:02 pm by Nick Shepherd










Kingsport Fire Department engineer Gene Lady and Capt. Chris Lowe place absorption pads in Leslie Branch near Sullivan North High School. Photo by David Grace



A diesel spill at a Kingsport gas station, which ran into a drain that empties into a creek, prompted a call to local firefighters and the Environmental Protection Agency.




According to Barry Brickey, public education officer for the Kingsport Fire Department, a call came in around 9:30 Tuesday morning about a diesel spill at Valero, 2729 N. John B. Dennis Highway.




A driver was filling his truck with diesel fuel. He placed the handle to the on position and went inside. When the driver returned, the pump failed to turn off and was spilling fuel into the parking lot.




Some of the fuel reached a drain in the parking which leads to a nearby creek.



Valero contacted KFD, which responded with three fire engines, a Hazmat and C3. The company also contacted American Environmental, the EPA and county Emergency Management.




Brickey said a series of booms and pads were placed in the parking lot and the creek to collect the fuel. Brickey said the KFD Hazmat team has contained the spill and there should be no danger to the public.

NINTH CIRCUIT ENFORCES WAIVER OF SUBROGATION CLAUSE IN DESIGN/BUILD AGREEMENT AGAINST POST-CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY INSURER (TRAVELERS INSURANCE)



Ninth Circuit Enforces Waiver of Subrogation Clause in Design/Build Agreement Against Post-Construction Property Insurer (Travelers Insurance)

In general, waives of subrogation are enforceable.  We have previously posted a blog that deals with the waivers of subrogation as they apply to the construction industry here:

Understanding Waivers of Subrogation as they apply to the Construction Industry

Despite these precedents and established law, the insurers will still file lawsuits so that they avoid paying the damage claims.  In the case that follows it is obvious that Travelers’ lawyers are making some pretty ridiculous assertions, as both the district court and the court of appeals rejected these claims.  The Travelers’ lawyers could not even understand the difference between waiver of subrogation and exculpatory clauses!  We attach the entire court opinion so that readers can see the magnitude of the stupidity shown by these lawyers so that they avoid paying a claim for damages.

Travelers Indem. Co. v. Crown Corr, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21101 (9th Cir. 2014)
This action arose out of the construction of the University of Phoenix Stadium (the “Stadium”), home of the Arizona Cardinals.  Tourism and Sports Authority (the “Owner”) entered into a Design/Build Agreement with the Arizona Cardinals and Hunt Construction Group (the “Contractor”) for the design and construction of the Stadium (the “Prime Contract”).  The Contractor then entered into a subcontract with Crown Corr, Inc. (the “Subcontractor”) for the design of the Stadium’s exterior enclosure system (the “Subcontract”).

Construction was completed and the Stadium opened in August 2006.  Nearly four years later, a storm moving through Glendale, Arizona caused metal panels to fall from the Stadium, resulting in an estimated $1.5 million in damages to its façade, retractable roofs and the sound system.  The Owner submitted the claim to its post-construction property insurer, Travelers Indemnity Co. (the “Insurer”), who in turn brought suit as subrogee of the Owner against the Subcontractor.  The Insurer’s complaint alleged that the failure of the panels and the subsequent damage caused by that failure were a direct result of the Subcontractor’s negligent construction. The Subcontractor responded by filing a motion to dismiss on the basis of the following waiver of subrogation clause contained in the Prime Contract (the “Waiver”):

“The Parties waive subrogation against one another, the Design/Builder, Design Consultants, Subcontractors, and their respective agents and employees on all property and consequential loss policies that may be carried by any of them on adjacent properties and under property and consequential loss policies purchased for the Facility.”
The district court dismissed the action after concluding that the Waiver operated to preclude the Insurer’s claims, and the Insurer appealed to the Ninth Circuit.   On appeal, the Court addressed three challenges raised by the Insurer to the findings below.
First, the Insurer argued that the district court erred in interpreting the term “Facility” as used in the Waiver to mean “the Stadium after it is fully operational.”  The Insurer argued that the term “Facility” referred to the structure during construction and not the completed Stadium.  Thus, the Insurer asserted that the Waiver had expired upon substantial completion of the project, and did not apply to its post-construction claims.  In rejecting the Insurer’s temporal argument, the Court found that the Insurer failed to put forth a persuasive reading that showed that “Facility” refers only to the Stadium before substantial completion.  The Court cited to other uses of the term in the Prime Contract referring to “Facility” in a way that describes a post-completion Stadium.  For example, the Court noted a provision forecasting that the Arizona Cardinals will play “at the Facility for thirty (30) years.”  Thus, the Court reasoned, that even if “Facility” could possibly refer to pre-completion as the Insurer argued, at most, it only established that the term refers to the Stadium both before and after substantial completion.  The Court held that the Waiver was therefore still applicable and not “reasonably susceptible” to the Insurer’s more restrictive view.

Second, the Insurer challenged the district court’s determination that the Owner could waive the subrogation rights of a property insurer providing insurance years after the property in question was completed.  In rejecting this argument, the Ninth Circuit noted that Arizona courts recognize the right of an insured, when the insured is waiving its own rights, to waive its insurer’s subrogation rights.  The Court pointed to the insurance provision in the Prime Contract wherein the parties waived their own subrogation rights with respect to the property insurance the Owner was required to carry, and a similarly broad release contained in the Subcontract having the same effect.  Because these provisions also waived the Owner’s rights to subrogation, the Court concluded that the Waiver applied to the Insurer and barred its contract claims against the Subcontractor.

Third, the Insurer argued that, in any event, the Waiver should not apply to its negligence claim on the grounds that exculpatory clauses are disfavored and construed strictly in Arizona.  The Court disagreed, finding that a subrogation waiver is different from a true exculpatory clause. The Court reasoned that subrogation waivers do not present the same dangers as exculpatory clauses, because no risk exists that the injured party will be left without compensation.  The Court also highlighted the important policy goals served by subrogation waivers as a matter of risk allocation.  While acknowledging that Arizona did not appear to have ruled explicitly on whether a subrogation waiver applies to a tort claim, the Court found no reason that Arizona would depart from the general rule that subrogation waivers apply regardless of the nature of the claim.  Thus, because the Court concluded that the Owner waived its rights against the Contractor and Subcontractors and that the Waiver applied against the Insurer as to its contract claims, the Court also concluded that the Waiver applied to the Insurer’s tort claim.

Consequently, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision to enforce the Waiver and dismiss the Insurer’s action for recovery.


___________________________________________

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, as subragee of Tourism and Sports Authority, DBA Arizona Sports & Tourism Authority, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CROWN CORR INC., an Indiana corporation, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-15170, No. 12-16663

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21101

March 11, 2014, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California October 31, 2014, Filed
NOTICE: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00965-JAT. James A. Teilborg, Senior District Judge, Presiding.
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Crown Corr, Inc., 2012  U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90326 (D. Ariz., June 29, 2012)
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Crown Corr, Inc., 2011  U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148529 (D. Ariz., Dec. 27, 2011)

DISPOSITION:    AFFIRMED.

CASE SUMMARY:

OVERVIEW: HOLDINGS: [1]-An insurer's parol evidence was properly rejected in considering its contract claim based on the subrogation waiver provision in an agreement for the construction of a stadium because the disputed contract provision was not reasonably susceptible to the insurer's proffered interpretation, and thus consideration of the insurer's interpretation of the provision and its parol evidence were not warranted; [2]-Under the parties' agreement, the insured could waive the subrogation rights of a property insurer hired after the property  in  question  was  completed,  and  thus,  the subrogation waiver applied to the insured and barred its contract claims; [3]-The contractual subrogation waiver, which was distinct from a disfavored exculpatory clause, precluded the insured's tort claims, as well as contract claims, and thus, the insured's negligence claim was properly rejected.

OUTCOME: Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL:   For   THE   TRAVELERS   INDEMNITY
COMPANY, as subragee of Tourism and Sports Authority, DBA Arizona Sports & Tourism Authority, Plaintiff - Appellant (12-15170): Susan Freeman, Attorney, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Phoenix, AZ; James Keller LaRoe, III, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of James K. LaRoe PC, Dallas, TX.

For CROWN CORR INC., an Indiana corporation, Defendant - Appellee (12-15170): James Lawrence Blair, Attorney, William W. Drury, Jr., Denise J. Wachholz, Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros, PA, Phoenix, AZ.

For THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, as subragee of Tourism and Sports Authority, DBA Arizona Sports & Tourism Authority, Plaintiff - Appellant (12-16663): William G. Voit, Attorney, Susan Freeman, Attorney, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Phoenix, AZ;
Page 1


2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21101, *1

Page 2

James Keller LaRoe, III, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of James K. LaRoe PC, Dallas, TX.

For CROWN CORR INC., an Indiana corporation, Defendant - Appellee (12-16663): James Lawrence Blair, Attorney, William W. Drury, Jr., Kevin Richard Myer, Denise J. Wachholz, Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros, [*2] PA, Phoenix, AZ.

JUDGES: Before: THOMAS, FISHER, and BERZON,
Circuit Judges.

OPINION

MEMORANDUM*

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Plaintiff-appellant The Travelers Indemnity Co. ("Travelers") appeals the district court's decision to grant defendant-appellee Crown Corr, Inc.'s ("Crown Corr") motion to dismiss Travelers' two contract claims and one tort claim. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of the case, we need not recount them here.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. "We review de novo a dismissal under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim." Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Catellus Dev. Corp., 976 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir. 1992). We also "review a district court's application of state substantive law in diversity actions de novo." Giles v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the district court's decision.

I A
The district court dismissed Travelers' contract claims on the basis of the subrogation waiver in Section
11.4.6 of the Design/Build Agreement ("agreement"), which set out parameters for the construction of the University  of  Phoenix  Stadium  ("stadium").  Section
11.4.6 reads, in its entirety:

The Parties waive subrogation against one another, the Design/Builder, Design

Consultants, Subcontractors, and their respective agents and [*3] employees on all property and consequential loss policies that may be carried by any of them on adjacent properties and under property and consequential loss policies purchased for the Facility.

When Arizona courts interpret contracts, they "attempt to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties at the time the contract was made if at all possible." Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 175 Ariz. 148, 854 P.2d 1134, 1139 (Ariz. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Arizona Supreme Court has instructed that a "judge first considers the offered evidence and, if he or she finds that the contract language is 'reasonably susceptible' to the interpretation asserted by its proponent, the evidence is admissible to determine the meaning intended by the parties." Id. at 1140. However, a court "need not waste much time if the asserted interpretation is unreasonable or the offered evidence is not persuasive." Id. at 1141.

The district court did not err in concluding that Section 11.4.6 was not "reasonably susceptible" to Travelers' proffered interpretation and therefore rejecting Travelers' parol evidence. Travelers contends that the district court erred in interpreting the term "Facility" in Section 11.4.6 to mean "the Stadium after it is fully operational." However, Travelers fails to put forth a narrower [*4] reading that shows the term refers only to the stadium before substantial completion. At most, Travelers establishes that the term refers to the stadium both before and after substantial completion. For example, Travelers notes that in Recital A of the agreement, "Facility" is used as a shorthand version of the term "multipurpose stadium facility" and that the Recital states that the Authority is empowered to "construct, finance, furnish, maintain, improve, own, operate, market and provide" the "Facility." Travelers argues that because the agreement envisions "construct[ing]" and "financ[ing]" the Facility, both of which will occur before completion, the term could apply to the stadium before completion. Similarly, Travelers argues that the terms "Work" and "Project," refer to the services necessary to complete the stadium and the construction process, not the precompletion stadium itself, so that "Facility" could still be used pre-completion. Even if Travelers is correct as to both of these arguments, it only succeeds in showing that the term applies to the stadium before and after completion. Indeed, if the fact that Recital A uses "construct" and "finance" in describing the early stages of the stadium shows [*5] that the term "Facility" could apply to the precompletion stadium, the fact that "maintain," "operate," and "market" are also used shows that "Facility" must also apply to the stadium after completion and throughout its lifetime.

Travelers also cites several sections, including Sections 1.5, 1.8.1, and 2.1.1, that use adjectives beyond the term "Facility" itself to describe the "completed and fully operational Facility." It argues these phrases show that "Facility" cannot refer only to the post-completion stadium. But, again, Travelers' argument does not establish that "Facility" refers only to the pre-completion stadium. Moreover, in other provisions, like Recitals A and B, and Sections 1.7.1.10, 2.8.1.b, 11.4.1.m, the contract refers to "Facility" in a way that describes a post-completion stadium. Indeed, Recital B forecasts that the Arizona Cardinals football team will play football games "at the Facility for thirty (30) years." In that context, the term envisions a fully completed  stadium over the course of three decades. In short, the term "Facility" means the stadium at any time. The waiver therefore still applies today and is not "reasonably susceptible" to Travelers' more restrictive view.

The broader context of the Design/Build [*6] Agreement confirms our view of the subrogation waiver. Section 11.4.6 does not include any language as to how long it will be in effect. Travelers argues that the agreement was written to facilitate construction of the stadium and, as a result, it only mentions duration when a provision, like Section 2.2.20, is meant to apply beyond substantial completion. See, e.g., Agreement § 2.2.20 ("The provisions of this Article [2] shall survive the completion, suspension or termination of this Agreement."). However, other sections, like Section 11.4.1, explicitly state that they will apply through substantial completion only.

Other provisions in Section 11.4 are written narrowly as well. Section 11.4.3 explains the extent to which the Authority and the Cardinals may occupy the partially completed stadium (labeled in this provision "the Work" and not "the Facility"). Section 11.4.5 contains a waiver of rights due to loss or damage to equipment used during construction. Section 11.4.4 includes a waiver of rights "for damages caused by perils covered by insurance provided under Section 11.4."

Section 11.4.6 is different from each of these provisions. It contains a subrogation waiver by the Parties against all others involved, including subcontractors, "under property or consequential loss policies purchased for the Facility." [*7] It does not limit itself to injuries or harm arising from "the Work," and it does not include the Section 11.4.4 restriction that the waiver applies only to "insurance provided under Section 11.4." Instead, the language is far broader.

In sum, we conclude that Section 11.4.6 is not reasonably susceptible to Travelers' narrow interpretation. The district court did not err in rejecting that interpretation and refusing to consider Travelers' parol evidence.[1]

B

Travelers    also    challenges    the    district    court's conclusion, assuming the subrogation waiver applies to Travelers, that the Authority had the ability to waive the subrogation rights of a post-construction property insurer.

Arizona courts recognize the right of an insured, when the insured is waiving its own rights, to waive its insurer's subrogation rights. Monterey Homes Ariz., Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 221 Ariz. 351, 212 P.3d 43, 47 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009) (noting that "an insurer's right to subrogation derives from its insured's right to recover against a third party" and concluding that "if the insured releases its claims against [*8] the third party--even without the insurer's consent--the insurer will be barred from asserting that claim against the third party by way of subrogation").

The Authority waived its rights against Crown Corr. Section 11.2, in general, requires the Design/Builder (i.e., Hunt) to carry liability insurance. In Section 11.2.5, the agreement provides that Hunt, and its consultants and subcontractors via separate agreements, releases the Authority and other "Released Parties" "from any and all claims or causes of action" which Hunt or its consultants or subcontractors possess "resulting in or from or in any way connected with any loss covered and actually paid . .
. by an insurance policy as agreed by the Parties hereunder." In return, that same provision states that

[t]he Released Parties . . . release the Design/Builder . . . [and] Subcontractors . .
. from any and all claims or causes of action whatsoever which any of the Released Parties might otherwise possess resulting in or from or in any way connected with any loss to the extent it is covered and actually paid by any insurance policy provided hereunder or any other insurance policy otherwise available to the Released Party or that should have been covered by any insurance [*9] policy any Released Party was required to maintain.

Hunt's agreement with Crown Corr, at Section 8.3, contains a similarly broad release provision. Crown Corr also notes that Travelers' insurance policy explicitly acknowledges that an "Insured," like the Authority, "may waive its rights against another party by specific written agreement." As a result, Travelers has implicitly acquiesced to the subrogation waiver in Section 11.4.6. Moreover, savvy insurers like Travelers have several options available, when negotiating an insurance contract, for limiting the effect of a subrogation waiver. See Bakowski v. Mountain States Steel, Inc., 2002 UT 62, 52 P.3d 1179, 1186 (Utah 2002).

In sum, we conclude the district court did not err in determining that the Authority could waive the subrogation rights of a property insurer hired years after the property in question was completed. As a result, we conclude that the subrogation waiver in Section 11.4.6 applies to Travelers and bars its contract claims against Crown Corr.

II

The district court rejected Travelers' negligence claim under Arizona's economic loss doctrine. We affirm on a separate ground, namely that the subrogation waiver in Section 11.4.6. precludes tort claims as well as contract claims. See Atel Fin. Corp. v. Quaker Coal Co., 321 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2003) ("We may affirm the district court's judgment on any ground supported by [*10] the record, whether or not the decision of the district court relied on the same grounds or reasoning we adopt.").

Generally, subrogation waivers apply "regardless of the nature of the claim." 2 Philip L. Bruner & Patrick J. O'Connor, Jr., Bruner & O'Connor on Construction Law, Analysis of AIA General Conditions: Waivers of Subrogation, § 5:231 (2014).  Travelers argues the waiver of subrogation in this case nonetheless should not apply to tort claims because: (1) Arizona law requires waivers of liability for negligence to be expressed in "clear and unequivocal terms," Sirek v. Fairfield Snowbowl,  Inc., 166 Ariz. 183, 800 P.2d 1291, 1295 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990), and the Design/Build Agreement does not contain the necessary language; (2) the Design/Build Agreement, in Section 15.8.1, notes that nothing in the agreement should be read to limit rights and remedies available to the parties by law; and (3) the Arizona Constitution, article XVIII, section 5, requires that defenses in tort cases of contributory negligence or assumption of risk be heard by a jury.

Travelers is correct that exculpatory clauses, which exempt a negligent tortfeasor from liability and leave a victim with no recourse, are disfavored and construed strictly in Arizona, because such clauses"may encourage carelessness." Sirek, 800 P.2d at 1294-96; see also Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., 192 Ariz. 313, 965 P.2d 47,  51  (Ariz.  Ct.  App.  1998);  Morganteen  v.  Cowboy Adventures, Inc., 190 Ariz. 463, 949 P.2d 552, 553-56 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997); Mauer v. Cerkvenik-Anerson Travel, Inc., 181 Ariz. 294, 890 P.2d 69, 73-74 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).

However, subrogation waivers are different from traditional exculpatory clauses. Subrogation waivers do not present [*11] the same dangers as exculpatory clauses, because no risk exists that the injured party will be left without compensation, and subrogation waivers serve important policy goals. Lexington Ins. Co. v. Commc'n Servs., Inc., 275 Neb. 702, 749 N.W.2d 124, 130-31 (Neb. 2008); see also Am. Motorist Ins. Co. v. Morris Goldman Real Estate Corp., 277 F. Supp. 2d 304, 307-08 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (noting that a "waiver of subrogation clause is an allocation of risk provision, which places the ultimate risk of loss on the insurer," and that subrogation waivers "are not true exculpatory clauses").

The cases Travelers cites all relate to exculpatory clauses. Although Arizona does not appear to have ruled explicitly on whether a subrogation waiver applies to a tort claim, Travelers cites no case law that would compel us to conclude Arizona would depart from the general rule. Travelers points to language in the Arizona constitution and to language in the Design/Build Agreement itself. But subrogation waivers are also different from the assumption of risk waivers contained in many form contracts and targeted by the Arizona Constitution, again because the injured party is not left without recompense. And while Section 15.8.1 of the agreement clarifies that nothing in the agreement serves as "a limitation of any duties, obligations, right and remedies otherwise imposed or available at law," Travelers cites no authority [*12] that supports construing such a provision to constrain a subrogation waiver--a common type of waiver found in many contracts in the construction context. Moreover, although neither is completely factually analogous, both United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Farrar's Plumbing and Heating Co., 158 Ariz. 354, 762 P.2d 641, 641-43 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988), and Fire Insurance Exchange v. Thunderbird Masonry, Inc., 177 Ariz. 365, 868 P.2d 948, 952-53 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993), lend support to the general proposition that a valid subrogation waiver encompasses tort claims. Thus, because we conclude that the Authority waived its rights against Hunt and subcontractors and that the subrogation waiver applies against Travelers as to its contract claims, we also conclude the waiver applies to Travelers' tort claim.[2]
III
Because we affirm the district court's decision to grant Crown Corr's motion to dismiss, we also affirm the court's decision to grant attorneys' fees to Crown Corr.
AFFIRMED.



[1] Both Travelers and Crown Corr cite to a number of cases from other states. These cases are of limited relevance because, unlike this case, they all involve the American Institute of Architects' ("AIA") form contract, or some close variation thereof.

[2] Travelers also contends that, even if the subrogation waiver applies to its tort claim, "the scope of that waiver could extend only to damage to property that was the subject of the subcontractor's work" and not to other property--such as the separate roof system and sound system speaker clusters--that was allegedly damaged by the falling roof panels in this case. We conclude that the district court did not err in deciding that the subject of the Design/Build Agreement, and the subrogation waiver specifically, was the entire completed stadium and that Travelers has not sufficiently supported its argument that certain portions of [*13] the stadium are so separate and distinct as to constitute "other property" outside the scope of the agreement and waiver.