Contango Operators, Inc. v. Weeks Marine, Inc.
613 F. App'x 281
5th Cir.2015Background
- Contango obtained a Section 10 Corps permit to build a submarine natural-gas pipeline in the Gulf; Corps Regulatory Division failed to inform the Waterways Division that the pipeline crossed the Corps-maintained Atchafalaya Channel.
- Contango filed as‑built drawings with some agencies (MMS, Coast Guard) but did not provide them to the Corps; NOAA charts initially omitted the pipeline but were later updated based on MMS data and the Coast Guard issued a local notice.
- The Corps awarded Weeks a dredging contract; the project specifications listed five pipelines but omitted Contango’s; Weeks relied solely on the specifications and did not consult NOAA charts or local notices.
- Weeks’s dredge struck Contango’s pipeline in Feb 2010, rupturing it; Contango sued Weeks and the United States under general maritime law for negligence.
- The district court found Weeks 40% liable and the United States 60% liable; on appeal Weeks argued non‑liability or only 10% share and the United States invoked an exculpatory permit clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weeks breached duty by relying solely on Corps specs | Contango: reasonable care required dredger to check available charts/notices; reliance on specs was negligent | Weeks: industry custom and lack of regulation justified sole reliance on specs; Michigan Wisconsin shields dredgers who justifiably rely on specs | Court: Weeks breached duty; reliance unjustified given low burden to check NOAA/local notices; 40% fault affirmed |
| Whether Corps’s permit exculpatory clause bars liability | Contango: clause does not bar suits based on the Corps’s independent tort duty of reasonable care | United States: clause (“Federal Government does not assume any liability…”) shields govt for damages from its activities tied to the permit | Court: clause interpreted narrowly — it disclaims liability created by issuing the permit, not preexisting tort duties; clause does not bar liability here |
| Whether Michigan Wisconsin absolves Weeks | Weeks: Michigan Wisconsin holds a dredger justified in relying on Corps specs is not liable | Contango: Michigan Wisconsin governs dredger v. government claims, not third‑party claims against dredger | Court: Michigan Wisconsin inapplicable to Contango’s claim against Weeks; does not mandate Weeks’s exoneration |
| Allocation of fault between Weeks and United States | Contango sought full recovery; assigned comparative fault | Weeks sought 10% allocation | Court: comparative‑fault analysis supports 40% Weeks / 60% United States allocation; joint tortfeasors jointly and severally liable under maritime law |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan Wisconsin Pipeline Co. v. Williams‑McWilliams Co., 551 F.2d 945 (5th Cir. 1977) (Corps representation in specs can make government liable to dredger who justifiably relied)
- S. Natural Gas Co. v. Pontchartrain Materials, Inc., 711 F.2d 1251 (5th Cir. 1983) (Corps permitting context can define a duty to warn and support government liability)
- Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC v. In re, 624 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2010) (foreseeability standard for maritime negligence)
- United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1975) (apportionment of damages among joint tortfeasors by comparative fault)
- Stolt Achievement, Ltd. v. Dredge B.E. Lindholm, 447 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2006) (apportionment requires qualitative assessment of each party’s faults)
- Piney Run Pres. Ass'n v. County Commissioners, 268 F.3d 255 (4th Cir. 2001) (principles for interpreting permits and ambiguity analysis)