James Hefren v. Murphy Expl & Prodn Co., USA, et a
820 F.3d 767
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff James Hefren, a lead operator on the Front Runner Spar, alleged he was injured on June 6, 2011, when a valve flange struck his face; he sued McDermott (designer/builder of the Spar) and Murphy in Louisiana state court for negligence under general maritime law and the Jones Act.
- Murphy contracted with McDermott to design and construct the Front Runner Spar; Murphy accepted delivery in May 2004 and the Spar was affixed to the seabed on the outer continental shelf adjacent to Louisiana.
- Murphy removed the action to federal court invoking diversity and OCSLA; the district court dismissed Hefren’s claims against Murphy under the Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.
- McDermott moved for summary judgment arguing La. Stat. Ann. § 9:2772 (a five-year peremptive period for claims arising from design/construction of immovable property) barred Hefren’s suit because Murphy accepted the Spar in 2004 and Hefren sued in 2012/2013.
- Hefren argued the Spar was movable (could be unmoored and transported) and some claims were failure-to-instruct claims outside the statute; the district court found the Spar was immovable (a building) given permanence, permanent mooring, intended 20-year life, and difficulty of removal, and held the claims perempted.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, applying Louisiana law via OCSLA and concluding the Spar is immovable and Hefren’s design/failure-to-warn/instruction claims were perempted by § 9:2772.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Front Runner Spar is "immovable property" under Louisiana law for § 9:2772 | The Spar is movable because only the mooring system is attached and it can be unmoored and transported | The Spar is effectively permanent: permanently moored, intended 20-year life, difficult/expensive to remove, remained fixed through hurricanes | Spar is immovable; resembles a building/fixed offshore platform and falls within § 9:2772 |
| Whether Hefren's claims arise from deficiencies in design/construction or failure to warn/instruct | Some claims (failure to instruct) are distinct from design and thus outside § 9:2772 | Instructions and warnings are part of design and therefore covered by § 9:2772 | Instructions/warnings are design-related; those claims are perempted by § 9:2772 |
| Whether § 9:2772 peremption applies given OCSLA federal surrogate-law framework | OCSLA adopts adjacent-state law; question is applying Louisiana peremption to the offshore structure | § 9:2772 applies through OCSLA unless inconsistent with federal law | OCSLA incorporates Louisiana law here; § 9:2772 applies and is not inconsistent with federal law |
| Whether certification to the Louisiana Supreme Court was required on unsettled state-law question | Certification necessary because spars’ classification is unsettled | Existing Louisiana and Fifth Circuit precedent provide sufficient guidance to decide | Declined to certify; court resolved question based on Olsen, related caselaw, and facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Olsen v. Shell Oil Co., 365 So. 2d 1285 (La. 1978) (fixed offshore drilling platform can be an immovable "building")
- Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., 182 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 1999) (discussion that spars can resemble fixed platforms and are not vessels for Jones Act purposes)
- Bruyninckx v. Bratten, 554 So. 2d 247 (La. Ct. App. 1989) (fixed drilling platform found to be a separate immovable)
- KSLA-TV, Inc. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 732 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1984) (peremptive statute "totally destroys" the previously existing right)
- Mendez v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., [citation="466 F. App'x 316"] (5th Cir.) (noting spar features consistent with a permanently moored fixed structure)