Joseph Wilcox v. Max Welders, L.L.C.
794 F.3d 531
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Wilcox, a welder employed by Max Welders, worked on offshore rigs, barges, and vessels for many clients; his time aboard any single vessel was under 30%.
- He was sent to the ERT decommissioning job for Energy Resource Technology GOM, working as a borrowed employee of Wild Well (a Superior subsidiary) on the D/B SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE barge.
- Injury occurred on June 5, 2012, while welding inside the well platform; Wild Well conceded Wilcox was its borrowed employee at the time.
- Superior and Wild Well sought indemnity from Max Welders under a 2004 Master Service Agreement (MSA) or, alternatively, a 2010 Vessel Boarding, Utilization and Hold Harmless Agreement (VBA).
- The district court granted summary judgment: Wilcox’s Jones Act/GML claims were dismissed as not raising seaman status; the MSA indemnity was void under LOAIA; VBA did not apply to Wilcox’s work; and related indemnity claims were resolved in Max Welders’ favor.
- This appeal has two parts: Wilcox’s challenge to the Jones Act decision regarding seaman status, and Superior/Wild Well’s cross-claim indemnity against Max Welders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilcox is a Jones Act seaman under substantial-connection analysis | Wilcox argues borrowed-employee status should be treated under Wild Well as his current employer for seaman status. | Court should assess seaman status using either entire employment with nominal employer or borrowing-employer period under Barrett/Chandris framework. | Wilcox does not present a genuine issue of material fact; not a seaman under Jones Act. |
| Whether the MSA indemnity is void under LOAIA | Superior/Wild Well contend LOAIA applicability negates MSA defense costs. | LOAIA voids indemnity where indemnitee is negligent; Meloy/Melancon argued for defense-cost recovery. | Superior/Wild Well waived Meloy/Melancon argument on appeal; MSA indemnity void under LOAIA. |
| Whether VBA provides indemnity for Wild Well and Superior defenses | VBA covers defense costs for vessels owned/operated by Superior; argues reformation to include Wild Well. | VBA unambiguous; not an addendum to MSA; parol evidence cannot reform; reformation rejected. | VBA does not obligate Max Welders to defend/satisfy Wild Well; no coverage for Superior when no Superior vessel involved. |
| Whether Barrett reassignment or New v. Associated Painting applies to Wilcox’s seaman status | Wilcox relies on reassignment/borrowed-employee theory to treat Wild Well as current employer. | No permanent change in status; Barrett exception not satisfied; status must be viewed in context of entire employment. | Court declines to adopt a per se rule favoring borrowing-employer status; Wilcox fails substantial-connection test. |
| Waiver of Meloy/Melancon arguments on appeal | Waived; MELoy/Melancon arguments not preserved at summary-judgment stage; MSA void under LOAIA affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995) (two-prong test for seaman status; focus on essence of seaman and substantial connection)
- Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 335 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2003) (reassignment exception requires substantial change in status; not applicable here)
- Barrett v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 781 F.2d 1067 (5th Cir. 1986) (barrett reassignment exception; time aboard vessel generally governs seaman status)
- New v. Associated Painting Services, Inc., 863 F.2d 1205 (5th Cir. 1989) (borrowed-employee seaman status discussion; considers entire employment context)
- Roberts v. Williams–McWilliams Co., 648 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1981) (borrowed-employee seaman status analysis pre-Chandris; significance of borrowing employer)
- Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., 504 So.2d 833 (La. 1987) (LOAIA applicability to indemnitee’s fault; defense-cost indemnity implications)
- Melancon v. Amoco Production Co., 834 F.2d 1238 (5th Cir. 1988) (indemnity under LOAIA where indemnitee at fault; appeals on defense costs)
- American Electric Power Co. v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co., 556 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 2009) (contract interpretation; parol evidence and reformation standards)