Contango Operators, Inc. v. United States
965 F. Supp. 2d 791
S.D. Tex.2013Background
- Contango’s subsea natural-gas pipeline (Atchafalaya channel) was completed in 2008; Contango provided as-built drawings to several federal agencies but not to the Army Corps’ Waterways Division.
- The Corps solicited and awarded an Atchafalaya-channel dredging contract in 2009; contract specifications listed five pipelines but omitted Contango’s pipeline; Weeks Marine won the contract and began dredging.
- NOAA updated nautical charts to show Contango’s pipeline (published Nov.–Dec. 2009) and the Coast Guard issued Local Notice to Mariners (LNM 48/09) after Weeks had already commenced work.
- On Feb. 24, 2010 Weeks Marine’s non‑self‑propelled dredge (G.D. MORGAN) struck and ruptured the Contango pipeline; Contango sued Weeks Marine and the United States in admiralty under the SAA.
- Procedural posture: multiple cross-motions for summary judgment (liability, government-contractor defense, presumption of fault, res judicata/collateral estoppel) and Weeks Marine’s motion for reconsideration of earlier dismissal of its cross-claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should reconsider dismissal of Weeks Marine’s cross-claim under the CDA | Reconsideration appropriate; CDA inapplicable to cross-claims | CDA applies and divests district court of jurisdiction over contract-based cross-claim | Denied — CDA applies; cross-claim falls under administrative submission requirement and district court lacks jurisdiction now (Weeks may pursue administrative route) |
| United States’ duty and liability for omission of pipeline from contract specs | Corps had continuing duty to warn contractor of hazards; omission made accident foreseeable | Duty discharged by publishing updated NOAA charts and LNM; Weeks Marine failed to consult them | Fact issues preclude summary judgment — scope (duty to warn) exists but whether notice reached Weeks or was sufficient is disputed |
| Weeks Marine’s negligence / reliance on contract specs | Weeks breached duty by failing to investigate or use updated charts/LNMs; over‑dredging alleged | Dredger reasonably relied on Corps’ specifications per precedent; not required to independently verify | Denied — genuine disputes of material fact (whether reliance was reasonable, industry practice re: charts/LNMs, and whether over‑dredging occurred) |
| Presumption of fault from allision (non‑self‑propelled vessel vs stationary object) | Contango: presumption applies and Weeks cannot rebut | Weeks: either presumption inapplicable or rebutted by due care evidence | Denied — factual disputes as to Weeks’ knowledge and due care; presumption and rebuttal are triable issues |
| Government-contractor (sovereign immunity) defense for Weeks | N/A (Weeks asserts defense) | Weeks: entitled to immunity because acting pursuant to government contract | Denied — genuine issues whether U.S. is immune and whether Weeks exceeded authority or acted negligently |
| Preclusion (res judicata / collateral estoppel) re: Contango’s fault from prior Louisiana judgment | Contango: prior judgment forecloses defendants’ comparative‑negligence defenses | Defendants: prior judgment resolved different issues (notice/marking), not the specific facts now alleged | Denied — res judicata inapplicable to affirmative defenses; collateral estoppel not shown because issues and necessary findings differ |
Key Cases Cited
- De Bardeleben Marine Corp. v. United States, 451 F.2d 140 (5th Cir. 1971) (government duty as cartographer — duty may be discharged once prudent navigator would have received corrected chart/LNM)
- Michigan Wisconsin Pipeline v. Williams-McWilliams, 551 F.2d 945 (5th Cir. 1977) (Corps’ routine practice of depicting structures may create reliance and duty to show pipelines in contract specs)
- Southern Natural Gas Co. v. Pontchartrain Materials, Inc., 711 F.2d 1251 (5th Cir. 1983) (Corps’ omission can create duty to prohibit or warn when dredging conflicts with pipelines)
- Trevino v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 865 F.2d 1474 (5th Cir. 1989) (claims based on government contracts fall under CDA and must be submitted to contracting officer)
- Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 951 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1992) (district court may hear appeals from administrative determinations under contract dispute procedures)
- In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC, 624 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2010) (scope of duty in admiralty tied to foreseeability of harm)
- Ackerson v. Bean Dredging LLC, 589 F.3d 196 (5th Cir. 2009) (government-contractor immunity/Yearsley analysis—contractor not immune if harmed by contractor’s own negligence)
- Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Constr. Co., 309 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1940) (contractor immunity when authority validly conferred and contractor did not exceed authority)