In Re Larry Doiron, Inc.

879 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2018)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Apache entered into a blanket master services contract (MSC) with D. The MSC included an indemnity provision running in favor of Apache and its contractors. Apache issued an oral work order directing D to perform 'flow-back' services on a gas well in navigable waters in Louisiana. A stationary production platform provided the only access to the gas well. The work order did not require a vessel, and neither Apache nor P anticipated that a vessel would be necessary to perform the job. After an unsuccessful day of work, D's crew determined that some heavy equipment was needed to complete the job and that a crane would be required to lift the equipment into place. The crew suggested to Apache that it engage a barge equipped with a crane to lift the equipment. Apache agreed and contracted with P to provide a crane barge. P's crew proceeded to the job site on the crane barge POGO and unloaded the equipment requested by D. D discovered that it needed yet a different piece of equipment, so, with the aid of the crane, both crews began removing the heavy equipment previously unloaded. The crane operator struck and injured one of D crewmembers, Peter Savoie, with the equipment. P filed a limitation of liability proceeding as the owner of the crane barge POGO. Savoie filed a claim in the limitation proceeding. P, as Apache's contractor, then filed a third-party complaint against D, seeking indemnity under the terms of the MSC. P filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that it was entitled to indemnity from D under the MSC. D filed a cross-motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that it owed no indemnity. If the MSC was a maritime contract general maritime law permitted enforcement of the indemnity provision. If not, Louisiana law controlled, and the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act (LOIA) precluded indemnity. The district court concluded that maritime law applied and awarded P indemnity from D. The appeals panel affirmed that judgment on appeal. A majority of the active judges then voted to take the case en banc.