Wilcox v. Max Welders, LLC
2:12-cv-02389
E.D. La.Aug 28, 2013Background
- On June 5, 2012 Joseph R. Wilcox, a contract welder employed by Max Welders, was injured while welding inside a pipe on a fixed platform during a decommissioning project in the Gulf of Mexico; he lived aboard the vessel SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE during the assignment.
- Wild Well (a Superior subsidiary) contracted with Max Welders to supply welders for removal of caissons/jacket structures under a decommissioning contract with the platform owner (ERT).
- Wilcox sued under the Jones Act and general maritime law (and alternatively LHWCA); Max Welders moved for summary judgment arguing Wilcox is not a Jones Act seaman. Wild Well and Superior cross-claimed for indemnity under a 2004 Master Service Agreement (MSA); Max Welders moved to dismiss the indemnity claim and argued LOAIA voids such indemnity.
- The court found genuine factual disputes about whether Wilcox’s duties contributed to the vessel’s mission but held as a matter of law he lacked the required substantial temporal connection to a vessel or fleet (did not meet the ~30% guideline and was not permanently reassigned).
- The court also held indemnity/defense obligations in the MSA (and related named-insured requirements) would be unenforceable under the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act (LOAIA) because the work pertained to well-related decommissioning; a separate Vessel Boarding Agreement (VBA) named only Superior (not Wild Well) and could not be reformed.
- Judgment: Max Welders’ motion granted — Jones Act and general maritime claims dismissed with prejudice; Max Welders’ motion against Superior/Wild Well on indemnity granted and Superior/Wild Well’s cross-motion denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilcox is a Jones Act seaman | Wilcox claimed he was effectively reassigned as crew of SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE for the assignment and his offshore time/fleet service supports seaman status | Max Welders argued Wilcox was an itinerant/land-based welder who worked widely for many customers and lacked a substantial temporal/functional connection to any vessel or fleet | Court: Not a seaman. Genuine fact dispute on functional contribution, but temporal prong dispositive — Wilcox did not meet the substantial-duration (~30%) guideline nor show a permanent reassignment |
| Whether Max Welders must indemnify Superior/Wild Well under the MSA | Superior/Wild Well: MSA covers the work and requires indemnity; alternatively VBA provides indemnity | Max Welders: MSA indemnity is unenforceable under LOAIA or does not apply to this third‑party decommissioning work; VBA names Superior only (not Wild Well) and cannot be reformed | Court: Indemnity obligations under the MSA would be void under LOAIA; VBA does not cover Wild Well and reformation denied; cross-claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995) (defines two-prong test for Jones Act seaman status)
- McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) (duties must contribute to vessel’s function; seaman status not limited to navigation duties)
- Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai, 520 U.S. 548 (1997) (seaman-status is mixed question; summary judgment appropriate only when facts/law lead to one conclusion)
- Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 335 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2003) (rejects a voyage-based test; temporary assignments do not automatically create seaman status)
- Lormand v. Superior Oil Co., 845 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1988) (assess seaman status over entire employment unless permanent reassignment occurs)
- Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Transportation Ins. Co., 953 F.2d 985 (5th Cir. 1992) (framework for applying LOAIA: agreement must pertain to a well and relate to exploration/production/transportation to invalidate indemnity)
- Verdine v. Ensco Offshore Co., 255 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2001) (LOAIA can apply to services on structures intended for oil/gas use even if not actively producing at contract time)