Lefler v. Atlantic Richfield Co., Inc., 85-3340
| Decision Date | 04 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-3340,85-3340 |
| Citation | 785 F.2d 1341 |
| Parties | John LEFLER, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GULFCOAST CATERING, INC., Defendant-Third Party Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
W.K. Christovich, Michael M. Christovich, New Orleans, La., for defendant-third party plaintiff-appellant.
Wood Brown, III, Shelly Hammond Provosty, New Orleans, La., for defendant-third party defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before GEE, RUBIN and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether it is federal maritime law or Louisiana law that governs a cross-claim for indemnification arising out of injuries sustained by a seaman employed on the Outer Continental Shelf of Louisiana. For the reasons assigned below we reverse the judgment of the district court and hold that federal maritime law governs this claim.
In December 1982, Gulfcoast Catering, Inc. (Gulfcoast) entered into a contract with the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), whereby Gulfcoast agreed to furnish catering services to ARCO as "the operator of Chandeleur Sound B1-25 Field Platform," a fixed platform on the Outer Continental Shelf of Louisiana. When the contract began, the platform was still under construction, Gulfcoast and ARCO personnel were temporarily housed on a barge moored near the platform, and the catering services were provided on that vessel.
The plaintiff in this action, John Lefler, was employed as a galleyhand by Gulfcoast, working from December 1982 through June 1983 primarily aboard the barge. In June, when the platform was completed, Lefler moved his lodging and personal effects to the platform, and the major focus of his work moved there. 1
In July 1983, Lefler was injured while crossing over from the platform to the barge with an armload of cleaning materials. He brought this action against Gulfcoast and ARCO under the Jones Act and General Maritime Law. ARCO then filed a cross-claim against Gulfcoast based on tort and an indemnification provision in the contract between the two.
A bifurcated trial was held. The jury found that the plaintiff was a seaman at the time of the accident, that both ARCO and Gulfcoast were negligent, and that the barge was unseaworthy, assigning percentages of fault.
ARCO's cross-claim against Gulfcoast was decided by the court. It held that the contract between the two was a non-maritime contract, which should be construed under Louisiana law, as provided by the terms of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 et seq. The court then ruled that under the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act, La.R.S. 9:2780, the indemnity provision in the contract would not stand and dismissed ARCO's cross-claim. ARCO appeals the district court's action.
In the context of a contract dispute on the Outer Continental Shelf, the application of maritime law is precluded except where the subject matter of the controversy bears the type of significant relationship to traditional maritime activities necessary to invoke admiralty jurisdiction. Laredo Offshore Constructors, Inc. v. Hunt Oil Co., 754 F.2d 1223, 1231 (5th Cir.1985). We have stated that, as between employer and employee, the determination of seaman status, supported by the evidence, is by itself a sufficient and independent basis for the application of maritime law to their relationship. Id., citing Kimble v. Noble Drilling Corp., 416 F.2d 847, 850 (5th Cir.1969). It does not necessarily follow, however, that the contractual relationship between ARCO and Gulfcoast is governed by such considerations.
For legal purposes, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act designates such fixed platforms as we treat of today as federal enclaves and decrees that disputes arising on them are, with certain exceptions, to be resolved by reference to the law of the adjacent state--Louisiana, in this instance. Matte v. Zapata...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodgen v. Forest Oil Corp.
...effect at the particular time and by the practice of the parties to the contract. 919 F.2d at 316-17; see also Lefler v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 785 F.2d 1341, 1343 (5th Cir.1986) (focusing on the contract as modified by the parties' practice). The court below found that all six questions y......
-
Rodrigue v. LeGros
...Co. v. Exxon Corp., 876 F.2d 40 (5th Cir.1989); Stoot v. Fluor Drilling Servs., 851 F.2d 1514 (5th Cir.1988); Lefler v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 785 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir.1986); Theriot v. Bay Drilling Corp., supra; Corbitt v. Diamond M. Drilling Co., supra; Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.......
-
Thurmond v. Delta Well Surveyors
...contract into a wholly maritime contract. The cause of action in Lefler arose out of the performance of a separate maritime obligation. Lefler is The wireline services in this contract action resemble the operations in a tort action in which this Court held maritime law inapplicable. In Soh......
-
Smith v. Penrod Drilling Corp.
...on the outer continental shelf. See, e.g., Laredo Offshore Constr. v. Hunt Oil Co., 754 F.2d 1223 (5th Cir.1985); Lefler v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 785 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir.1986); Lewis v. Glendel Drilling Co., 898 F.2d 1083 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 171, 116 L.Ed......
-
CHAPTER 3 THE TEXAS AND LOUISIANA ANTI-INDEMNITY STATUTES AS APPLIED TO OFFSHORE OIL & GAS INDUSTRY CONTRACTS
...v. Hunt Oil Co., 754 F.2d 1223 (5th Cir. 1985) 75, 292, 301-03, 310 314-15, 394, 396 [Page 3-118] Lefler v. Atlantic Richfield Co., Inc., 785 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir. 1986) 294, 300, 315 Legros v. Panther Services Group, Inc., 863 F.2d 345 (5th Cir. 1988) 137 Lewis v. Exxon Corp., 417 So.2d 1292......
-
Transferring risk by contractual indemnity: a view from oil and energy.
...Exploration Co., 923 F.2d 393 (5th Cir. 1991). (47.) 588 F.Supp. 122 (W.D. La. 1984). (48.) See also Lefler v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 785 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir. (49.) Thurmond v. Delta Well Surveyors, 836 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1988). (50.) 104 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1997). (51.) Angelina Cas. Co. v......