Wilcox v. Max Welders, L.L.C.
969 F. Supp. 2d 668
E.D. La.2013Background
- On June 5, 2012, Joseph R. Wilcox (a contract welder employed by Max Welders, LLC) was injured while welding inside a pipe during decommissioning work on a fixed platform at South Timbalier Block 63; he lived aboard the D/B SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE during the assignment.
- Wild Well Control, Inc. contracted with ERT to perform decommissioning; Wild Well retained Max Welders to supply welders (including Wilcox).
- Wilcox sued under the Jones Act and general maritime law (and alternatively LHWCA), alleging negligence and vessel unseaworthiness; Max Welders denied seaman status and moved for summary judgment.
- Wild Well and Superior Energy asserted cross-claims against Max Welders based on an April 2004 Master Service Agreement (MSA) (and alternatively a 2010 Vessel Boarding Agreement (VBA)) seeking defense and indemnity.
- The court held there were disputed facts on whether Wilcox’s duties contributed to a vessel’s mission, but concluded (as a matter of law) Wilcox did not satisfy the Jones Act temporal/substantial-connection requirement and was not a seaman; Jones Act/general maritime claims were dismissed with prejudice.
- The court also held that indemnity/defense obligations in the MSA would be unenforceable under the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act (LOAIA), and that the VBA unambiguously covered only vessels owned by Superior (not Wild Well), so cross-claim for indemnity was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seaman status (functional prong) | Wilcox: his onboard tasks and downtime work contributed to the SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE’s mission; he repaired and performed vessel tasks. | Max Welders: Wilcox primarily was a platform/land-based welder; onboard tasks were minor/incidental. | Genuine issue of fact exists on contribution to vessel mission; cannot resolve functional prong on summary judgment. |
| Seaman status (substantial-connection/temporal prong) | Wilcox: his offshore assignment (living aboard SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE) amounted to a permanent reassignment for this project or, alternatively, his cumulative offshore time suffices. | Max Welders: Over entire employment Wilcox worked for many customers on many jobs; he did not spend ≥30% of his time on a common fleet, and the assignment was temporary. | Court: As a matter of law Wilcox is not a seaman — he cannot show the required substantial temporal connection or a permanent reassignment. Summary judgment granted. |
| Enforceability of MSA indemnity under LOAIA | Superior/Wild Well: MSA creates indemnity obligations applicable to this work. | Max Welders: Even if MSA applied, LOAIA renders defense/indemnity provisions void because the work pertained to decommissioning/collateral acts relating to wells. | Court: LOAIA applies to these decommissioning services; indemnity/defense provisions in MSA are unenforceable. |
| VBA coverage / reformation request | Superior/Wild Well: VBA should be read (or reformed) to cover vessels in Superior’s company group (including SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE after ownership transferred to Wild Well). | Max Welders: VBA unambiguously names Superior as Owner and does not incorporate MSA terms; no basis to reform—reformation requires mutual mistake at execution. | Court: VBA unambiguous; it covers only vessels owned by Superior. Reformation denied; cross-claim for indemnity under VBA fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995) (establishes two-part Jones Act seaman test: contribution to vessel’s mission and substantial connection in duration and nature)
- McDermott Int'l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) (clarifies contribution-to-vessel-work prong; duties need not aid navigation)
- Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai, 520 U.S. 548 (1997) (seaman-status often a jury question; summary judgment only if one legal conclusion is reasonable)
- Roberts v. Cardinal Servs., Inc., 266 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2001) (30% temporal benchmark and analysis for identifiable group of vessels)
- Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 335 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2003) (rejects voyage-test; explains when reassignment can change seaman status)
- Verdine v. Ensco Offshore Co., 255 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2001) (LOAIA can apply to services on structures designated for use in oil and gas industry even if not actively producing)
- Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 953 F.2d 985 (5th Cir. 1992) (two-part LOAIA test: pertains to a well and related to exploration/development/production/transportation)