Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., Helix Well Ops, Inc., and Helix Offshore International, Inc. v. Kelvin Gold
522 S.W.3d 427
| Tex. | 2017Background
- Kelvin Gold worked for Helix aboard the HELIX 534 (the 534) from Dec 2012 to Nov 2013 and alleges work-related injuries in Dec 2012 and an aggravation in Apr 2013.
- Helix purchased the older drill ship, towed it to a shipyard in Jurong in Aug 2012, and undertook an extensive repair and conversion to a well-intervention vessel; work continued in Galveston after a Sept 2013 tow and completed in Apr 2014.
- Gold testified the 534 lacked operable engines, was not self-propelled, and remained docked while he worked aboard; his duties were familiarization and minor maintenance during the conversion.
- Helix presented testimony and documentary evidence about the scope, cost (~$115 million), and duration (~20 months) of repairs and conversion and that major components were removed/added.
- Disputed legal question: whether the 534 was a "vessel in navigation" (Jones Act) at relevant times around Gold’s two injury dates so summary judgment for Helix was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gold) | Defendant's Argument (Helix) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the 534 a "vessel in navigation" at the time of Gold's Dec 2012 injury? | The ship was inoperable and not practically capable of transportation while Gold worked aboard. | The ship was withdrawn from navigation during conversion and thus not a vessel in navigation. | Court of appeals reversed summary judgment; Justice Johnson would affirm that material facts preclude as-applied summary judgment because duration before Dec is not conclusively established. |
| Was the 534 a "vessel in navigation" at the time of Gold's Apr 2013 aggravation/second injury? | Same: the ship remained non-self‑propelled and docked, so not in navigation. | Same: extensive conversion and component removal show it was out of navigation. | Held: evidence does not conclusively establish status after Apr; summary judgment inappropriate on that date. |
| Did Helix meet its summary judgment burden to show the ship was conclusively out of navigation for relevant periods? | N/A (plaintiff opposes summary judgment). | Helix contends project scope, duration, cost, and removal of propulsion make vessel non-navigable as a matter of law. | Held: Helix failed to carry its burden—evidence lacks timing detail about when propulsion was removed/returned; reasonable people could differ. |
| What inference rule applies on summary judgment about navigation status? | N/A. | Helix urged inferences from project scope/duration support its position. | Held: On summary judgment, all reasonable inferences must be drawn against the movant; permissive trial inferences for movant cannot substitute for evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Lorena v. BMTP Holdings, L.P., 409 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. 2013) (summary judgment inference rule: view evidence favorably to nonmovant)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (distinction between undisputed and conclusive evidence for summary judgment)
- Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005) ("practical capability" test for being a vessel in navigation)
- Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995) (in navigation is a matter of degree; usually for the jury)
- Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 568 U.S. 115 (2013) (caution against relying on conclusory testimony about vessel status)
- West v. United States, 361 U.S. 118 (1959) (major overhaul and contractor control can remove vessel from maritime service)
- McKinley v. All Alaskan Seafoods, Inc., 980 F.2d 567 (9th Cir. 1992) (extensive reconstruction over many months may take vessel out of navigation)
- Buck v. Palmer, 381 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. 2015) (on summary judgment, inferences go against the movant)