ST8201-CS 880516 8 t9 8
~--M.r_. John C. Karlsruher
Gin~ Inc.
17103 Preston Road
Suite 100, BB 118
Dallas, Texas 75248
IAANGEIt, NICHOLS, JACKSON,
KIItK & DIL, LAH, I)
'ormerly Saner. ,lack, Sallinger & Nichols}
Attorneys & Counselors at I,aw
1800 Lincoln Plaza
500 N. Akard
I)allas, Texas 75201
1214} 954-3333
Facsimile 1214} 954-3334
May 16, 1988
pII. I.i,%'I'q)N CENTEI~. OFFICE
8222 I)ouKl~S Ave. Stfil~ 707
Dallas. 'r.,a~ 75225
1214} 692-1218
Re:
Coppell-Conoco Agreement
Our File No. 212
Dear John:
I have reviewed Conoco's letter which was proposed as an agreement between
the City and Conoco to permit the City to construct across Conoco's six-inch high
pressure petroleum pipeline.
Although it is not clearly stated in the proposed agreement received from Conoco,
it is my understanding that Conoeo's pipeline will probably have to be lowered and
certain City utilities will be installed near the pipeline. I also understand that the work
to be done on the pipeline itself will be done by Conoco at the City's expense with
the City utilities being placed in the area by the City's contractors. '-
It appears that paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 8, and 14 concern the work to be done by
Conoco on their pipeline, and tile remaining paragraphs deal with the City's placement
of utilities within tile general area of the pipeline by its contractors.
The agreement on its face gives the impression that the City is going to be doing
all of the work including the lowering aud work on the pipeline.
I note that Conoco has estimated the cost of work on the pipeline to be $40,000,
which will be borne solely by the City of Coppell, however, in paragraph 3, they have
agreed to revise the cost estimates upon receipt of updated drawings.
I have no problem with paragraph 10 which is tile City's agreement to indemnify
and hold harmless Conoco for damages arising directly or indirectly from work to be
performecr'by the City or those under contract to tile City near the Con-Dor pipeline.
Paragraph 11 requires that the City will have to obtain a similar indemnification
agreement from its cc{ntractors who work on the project and require the contractor to
maintain the liability insurance as provided for in paragraph 13. I have no problem
with tile City's indemnification agreement, provided the contractors also are required
to so indemnify and maintain the public liability insurance.
Mr. Johq C. Karlsruher
Page 2
May 16, 1988
It is my opinion that the indemnification provision in pargraph 14 of the proposed
agreement is quite broad in favor of Conoco in that it provides that the City shall
indemnify Conoco against any damage to Denton Tap Road and the City's utility lines
arising out of the work being performed by Conoco or its contractors on the Conoco
pipeline and states that "This indemnification shall apply to all future work." I think
that the provision concerning the indemnification applying to all future work should be
eliminated, and Conoco's contractors should be reqnired to carry liability insurance and
be responsible for any damage they might cause.
I hope this letter can give you some assistance in arriving at a final agreement
with Conoco. If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
SALL, INGEI{, NICIIOI.~S, JACKSON,
KIiIK & I)I{,I, A RD
l,WJ/sb
~] Lawrehce~/] Jackson -
CC.'
Mr. Alan D. Ratliff
City Manager
City of Coppell
P. O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Ginn, Inc. File No. 335