LaFosse v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp
6:16-cv-00364
W.D. La.Feb 28, 2018Background
- Plaintiff was employed by Magnolia Torque & Testing as a torque technician working aboard the Nansen spar, a fixed production platform on the Outer Continental Shelf (East Breaks Blocks 602 & 646, seaward of Texas).
- The spar is permanently moored to the seabed, has no propulsion, and functions as an oil-and-gas production facility; plaintiff conceded it is on the OCS.
- Plaintiff alleges he was injured aboard the spar when a pneumatic wrench slipped and struck his face while working in the course and scope of employment.
- Magnolia was contracted to provide services to Anadarko, which operated the platform; plaintiff is deemed a longshoreman by operation of OCSLA.
- Anadarko moved for partial summary judgment asking the court to determine the substantive law governing plaintiff’s tort claims; the magistrate judge recommended Texas law (the adjacent state) apply as surrogate federal law under OCSLA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether general maritime (admiralty) jurisdiction applies | Injury arises from maritime work and LHWCA provisions; admiralty applies | Incident occurred on a fixed OCS platform not on navigable water or caused by a vessel; admiralty does not apply | Admiralty jurisdiction does not apply (location and connection tests not met) |
| Whether OCSLA supplies federal jurisdiction | Plaintiff did not expressly invoke OCSLA for jurisdiction | OCSLA jurisdiction applies because injury arose from operations on the OCS (production platform) | Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under OCSLA (43 U.S.C. §1333/§1349) |
| Which substantive law governs (state, federal maritime, or other) | Plaintiff’s claims may be governed by maritime or LHWCA-related standards | Texas law (adjacent state) should be applied as surrogate federal law under OCSLA | Texas law applies as surrogate federal law because (1) situs is OCS, (2) maritime law does not apply on its own, and (3) Texas law is not inconsistent with federal law |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 745 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 2014) (OCSLA "but-for" test for whether activities constitute operations on the OCS and whether the case arises out of or in connection with those operations)
- Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., 713 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2013) (discussing OCSLA jurisdiction and relation to maritime law)
- Union Texas Petroleum Corp. v. PLT Engineering, Inc., 895 F.2d 1043 (5th Cir. 1990) (articulating conditions for applying adjacent-state law as surrogate federal law under OCSLA)
- Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995) (location and connection tests for admiralty jurisdiction)
- Richendollar v. Diamond M Drilling Co. Inc., 819 F.2d 124 (5th Cir.) (discussing limits of §905(b) jurisdiction under LHWCA and necessity of admiralty nexus)
- Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 (1971) (principles for determining when state law is inconsistent with federal maritime law)
- Arsement v. Spinnaker Exploration Co., LLC, 400 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. 2005) (state law adoption under OCSLA when federal law is not applicable)
- Fontenot v. Dual Drilling Co., 179 F.3d 969 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that state law governs certain allocation-of-liability questions even when LHWCA coverage exists)