896 F.3d 350
5th Cir.2018Background
- In 2015 Carrizo contracted with Crescent to plug-and-abandon (P&A) three offshore wells in Louisiana territorial waters; the Turnkey Bid plus a Master Service Agreement governed the work.
- Crescent planned to use a five-person crew and three vessels (a spud/quarters barge OB 808, a tug SLYE JOSEPH, and a cargo barge); the OB 808 housed essential equipment (e.g., wireline unit, crane) and crew quarters.
- Crescent employee Corday Shoulder was severely injured on a fixed platform during P&A operations and sued; Crescent filed a limitation action under the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims.
- Carrizo invoked Crescent’s contractual indemnity; Crescent’s insurers argued the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act barred indemnity and contended the contract was not maritime.
- The district court held the contract was maritime, applied federal maritime law, enforced the indemnity, and granted summary judgment to Carrizo; Crescent’s insurers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carrizo) | Defendant's Argument (Crescent insurers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Crescent–Carrizo contract is a maritime contract under the Doiron test | P&A is part of oil/gas lifecycle on navigable waters and the contract anticipated substantial vessel use (OB 808, wireline unit) | P&A is akin to fixed-platform construction/decommissioning (non-maritime); accident occurred on fixed platform, not a vessel | Contract is maritime: (1) P&A concerns drilling/production on navigable waters; (2) parties expected vessels to play a substantial role (vessels integral, not merely transport) |
| Whether state anti-indemnity law displaces federal maritime indemnity rules | Federal maritime law applies to maritime contracts, so Louisiana anti-indemnity statute does not invalidate indemnity | Anti-indemnity statute should apply if contract is local/non-maritime | Maritime classification controls; Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act does not apply, indemnity enforceable |
| Whether the appellate court should consider the insurers’ late-raised "inherently local dispute" argument | N/A (argument raised on appeal) | The dispute is inherently local and state law should apply even if contract is maritime | Court declined to consider the late-raised inherently-local argument (waived and unlikely to change result) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 310 (1955) (state law may govern certain maritime-contract terms when local regulatory interest implicated)
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14 (2004) (federal maritime law governs where state interest cannot be accommodated without defeating federal maritime interests)
- Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 395 U.S. 352 (1969) (admiralty generally does not extend to incidents confined to fixed platforms)
- Doiron (In re Larry Doiron, Inc.), 879 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. en banc 2018) (establishes two-part test for maritime contracts: services to facilitate offshore drilling/production on navigable waters AND expectation that a vessel will play a substantial role)
- Davis & Sons, Inc. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 919 F.2d 313 (5th Cir. 1990) (prior multi-factor test for maritime classification; partially superseded by Doiron)
- Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995) (30% time-on-vessel guideline relevant to assessing substantiality in maritime contexts)
- Roberts v. Cardinal Servs., 266 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2001) (wireline operations characterized as essential to the drilling/P&A process)