Larry Doiron, Inc. v. Specialty Rental Tools & Supply, L.L.P.
849 F.3d 602
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Apache and STS executed a broad master services contract (MSC) in 2005 that contemplated future work orders and included a maritime choice-of-law clause and indemnity in favor of Apache’s "Company Group."
- In early 2011 Apache orally contracted STS to perform flow-back services on an offshore well on a fixed production platform; no written work order for that specific job was produced.
- STS personnel required heavier equipment during the job and a crane barge (POGO) owned by LDI was brought alongside; Robert Jackson operated the crane.
- STS employee Peter Savoie was injured during rigging down when he lost his grip on equipment affixed to the barge and fell onto the barge deck.
- LDI and Jackson sought defense and indemnity under the MSC; STS argued Louisiana law (Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act) applied rendering the indemnity clause void.
- The district court held the oral work order was maritime and enforced indemnity; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, applying the Davis & Sons multi-factor test and concluding the particular work order was maritime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether maritime or Louisiana law governs the indemnity clause | MSC/work order is maritime; maritime choice-of-law applies so indemnity is enforceable | State (Louisiana) law governs; indemnity void under Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act | Maritime law governs the oral work order; indemnity enforced (affirmed) |
| Relevant contract to analyze: MSC (blanket) or oral work order | The operative contract is the oral work order in effect at injury | The MSC should be governed by state law or is unrelated to LDI | The oral work order is the relevant contract and is maritime |
| Applicable test for maritime character of services | Apply Davis & Sons factors to the concrete facts at injury | Argue vessel use was incidental; analogies to non-maritime wireline cases | Applied Davis factors; found vessel use was necessary and work "inextricably intertwined" with maritime activity |
| Effect of situs/OCS/state-law arguments | Maritime law prevails even in territorial/OCS adjacency when contract is maritime | State/OCSLA principles should control; state law applies to nearby waters | Once contract is maritime, admiralty law controls; state law is irrelevant to indemnity issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis & Sons, Inc. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 919 F.2d 313 (5th Cir.) (establishes six-factor test for maritime vs. non-maritime contracts involving blanket MSCs and later work orders)
- Hoda v. Rowan Cos., 419 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2005) (applies Davis approach and notes maritime law can validate indemnity provisions)
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14 (2004) (contracts must be judged by their nature and reference to maritime service/transactions)
- Campbell v. Sonat Offshore Drilling, Inc., 979 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.) (casing services are maritime where vessel use is integral)
- Demette v. Falcon Drilling Co., 280 F.3d 492 (5th Cir.) (casing/drilling work is maritime when integral to vessel mission)
- Domingue v. Ocean Drilling & Expl. Co., 923 F.2d 393 (5th Cir.) (wireline services held non-maritime in prior decisions)
- Thurmond v. Delta Well Surveyors, 836 F.2d 952 (5th Cir.) (wireline services held non-maritime; emphasized lack of contractual vessel use)
- Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc. v. Seacor Marine, LLC, 589 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. en banc) (instructs use of contract principles to identify situs and whether state law applies)