Simar v. Tetra Technologies Inc
6:15-cv-01950
W.D. La.Sep 26, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Wendell Simar, a CB&I rigger, was injured on June 24, 2014 during a swing-rope transfer between Vermilion VR 250-C (a fixed OCS platform ~66 miles offshore) and a vessel; he fell when the swing-rope cable parted.
- Tetra/Maritech (platform owner/operator) hired CB&I under a Master Service Agreement (MSA) and a verbal callout to perform general construction/welding/repair work on VR 250-C to bring the platform into compliance so removal/decommissioning could proceed.
- Tetra/Maritech chartered the Supreme vessel to transport/house/stage personnel and equipment; CB&I personnel performed about 95% of work on the fixed platform and ~5% aboard or from the vessel.
- The MSA contained broad indemnity, defense, and insurance obligations requiring CB&I to indemnify Tetra/Maritech "regardless of fault."
- CB&I moved for summary judgment arguing the Louisiana Oilfield Anti‑Indemnity Act (LOIA), La. R.S. § 9:2780, voids those contractual defense/indemnity/insurance provisions; the court applied OCSLA and Louisiana law as surrogate federal law.
- Court found the contract (focus of performance) was on an OCSLA situs, maritime law did not apply of its own force (use of vessel was incidental), and the agreement "pertained to a well" (repairs were preparatory to platform removal), so LOIA voided the indemnity/defense obligations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable law under OCSLA | CB&I: Louisiana (adjacent-state) law applies, so LOIA governs and voids indemnity | Tetra: factual disputes about situs, vessel-use, and well-connection preclude summary judgment | Court: PLT test satisfied; Louisiana law applies despite contract's Texas choice-of-law |
| Whether situs is OCSLA situs | CB&I: Majority of contract performance (≈95%) on fixed OCS platform | Tetra: disputed whether majority of work occurred in state territorial waters vs OCS | Court: focus-of-contract shows work pertained to OCS platform; situs is OCSLA |
| Whether federal maritime law applies of its own force | CB&I: work is non-maritime (construction on fixed platform); vessel use was incidental | Tetra: workers and equipment used the vessel; Doiron suggests vessel use can make contract maritime | Court: historical and Davis-factor analysis — vessel use incidental (~5%); contract non-maritime |
| Whether LOIA applies ("pertains to a well") | CB&I: repairs were preparatory to removal/decommissioning of a platform tied to wells, so LOIA covers it | Tetra: work was repair (not removal) and lacked functional nexus to a well; Transcontinental factors create factual issues | Court: agreement pertained to a well (decommissioning/removal nexus); LOIA voids indemnity/defense/insurance provisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Texas Petroleum Corp. v. PLT Eng’g, Inc., 895 F.2d 1043 (5th Cir.) (OCSLA/PLT three‑part test governs when adjacent‑state law applies)
- Tetra Techs., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 814 F.3d 733 (5th Cir.) (focus‑of‑contract test; LOIA can apply to contracts collateral to platform removal)
- Domingue v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., 923 F.2d 393 (5th Cir.) (use of a vessel purely incidental makes contract non‑maritime)
- Davis & Sons, Inc. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 919 F.2d 313 (5th Cir.) (two‑prong test for maritime‑of‑its‑own‑force plus six‑factor inquiry)
- Herb’s Welding, Inc. v. Gray, 470 U.S. 414 (U.S. Supreme Court) (construction on fixed offshore platforms generally non‑maritime)