755 F.3d 222
5th Cir.2014Background
- Vertex, under an MSA with Tetra and Maritech, indemnifies them for Vertex employees' injuries and provides added insured status to Tetra/Maritech.
- Mayorga, Vertex employee on a salvaging off-shore platform, was injured when a bridge detached during a crane operation on the D/B Arapaho; he and co-workers sued Tetra and Maritech for negligence and unseaworthiness.
- Tetra/Maritech sued Vertex and Continental for indemnity and defense costs, Continental denying coverage; Vertex defaulted in district court.
- Continental moved for summary judgment arguing LOIA voids Vertex's indemnity/additional insured provisions; Exclusions (d) and (g) bar Mayorga's claims.
- District court denied LOIA and Exclusion (d) defenses, reserved ruling on Exclusion (g); entered final judgment under Rule 54(b) separating issues; Continental appealed.
- Contested question on appeal: whether the district court properly disposed of claims for Rule 54(b) jurisdiction; Vertex did not appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does LOIA void Vertex's indemnity and additional insured provisions? | Tetra/Maritech contend LOIA does not void as salvage work on a decommissioned platform is not a well. | Continental argues LOIA voids Vertex's indemnity and additional insured requirements. | No jurisdictional ruling; LOIA issue unresolved on appeal. |
| Do Exclusion (d) and Exclusion (g) bar coverage for Mayorga’s claims? | Exclusion (d) should not bar general maritime liability; Exclusion (g) does not preclude coverage where liability is not solely from ownership/use of the D/B Arapaho. | Exclusion (d) bars coverage for employer liability; Exclusion (g) bars coverage for watercraft ownership/use. | Complex; district court denied some, but not all, Exclusion defenses; court did not finalize Exclusion (g) determination. |
| Did the district court properly dispose of a claim to support Rule 54(b) final judgment? | District court resolved the indemnification issue and related coverage questions for entry of final judgment. | Resolution did not fully dispose of the indemnity claim or all aspects; risk of piecemeal appeals. | No; judgment under Rule 54(b) was improper for lack of complete disposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lloyds of London v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 38 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 1994) (LOIA nexus and applicability considerations)
- Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Transportation Insurance Co., 953 F.2d 985 (5th Cir. 1992) (interpretation of LOIA provisions in indemnity context)
- Exxon Corp. v. Oxxford Clothes, Inc., 109 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1997) (role of affirmative defenses and final disposition for Rule 54(b))
- N.W. Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Houston, 352 F.3d 162 (5th Cir. 2003) (jurisdictional requirement to dispose of a claim for Rule 54(b))
- Baker v. Bray, 701 F.2d 119 (10th Cir. 1983) (death knell standard for Rule 54(b) judgment)
- Eldredge v. Martin Marietta Corp., 207 F.3d 737 (5th Cir. 2000) (disposition of claims for Rule 54(b) when issues remain)
- Swope v. Columbian Chem. Co., 281 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2002) (purpose of Rule 54(b) to avoid piecemeal appeals)