Gautreaux v. Tetra Applied Technologies, LLC.
Anthony Gautreaux was attempting to install seal rings on a drill pipe located on a drilling barge owned by Tetra Applied Technologies LLC ("Tetra") when he allegedly suffered severe and disabling injuries. At the time of the injuries he was employed by Superior as a pipe thread representative. Gautreaux filed suit against Tetra seeking damages in 2008 and amended his complaint to add Forest Oil as a defendant because the work causing his injuries came as a result of a job call out by Forest Oil.
In response, Forest Oil filed a third party claim against Superior alleging that it was owed defense, indemnity, and additional insured status under a Master Service Contract between them and Superior. Superior argues, however, that Forest Oil's claims are prohibited under the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act. Both parties have filed a motion for summary judgment requesting dismissal of Gautreaux's claims on the basis of the independent contractor defense.Should the court grant either Superior's or Forest Oil's motions for summary judgment on the issue of indemnity? Should the court grant Forest Oil's motion for summary judgment on the independent contractor defense?
The court began its analysis by stating that in order for a court to grant summary judgment there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Further, the court explained that when reviewing the facts it must draw all inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion.
In regards to Indemnity and Defense, the court explained that the choice of law is outcome determinative to the resolution of the issue. The court found that Superior agreed to indemnify and defend Forest Oil but that this provision is invalid under Louisiana Law. To determine which law applies, the court must determine whether the work conducted by Gautreaux was maritime as a matter of law, validating the indemnity clause, or non-maritime, which would invalidate the clause. The court turned to a two part analysis using (1) the six factor analysis in Davis and Sons, Inc. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 919 F.2d 313, 313 (5th Cir.1990) asking: (a) what does the specific work order in effect at the time of injury provide? (b) what work did the crew assigned under the work order actually do? (c) was the crew assigned to work aboard a vessel in navigable waters? (d) to what extent did the work being done relate to the mission of that vessel? (e) what was the principal work of the injured worker? And (f) what work was the injured worker actually doing at the time of injury and (2) a historic analysis of past precedent. The court found elements in support of both sides of the argument but the seal ring inspection and installation, though ultimately necessary to the well completion process, did not itself involve any tasks that are inherently maritime in nature. As such, the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act governs the dispute and summary judgment in favor of Superior is warranted.
The Court also denied Forest Oil's motion for summary judgment on the independent contractor defense. Forest Oil argues that as an independent contractor they owed no duty to Gautreaux and did not cause the accident thus it cannot be held liable for under a negligence claim of action. In response, Gautreaux argues that Forest Oil is potentially liable under the Longshore & Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) because it bareboat chartered the deck boat and as a result owed him a duty in insure the barge was free of unreasonable hazard. After reviewing Section 905(b), the court determined that there are controlling questions of law and fact that remain in dispute and as such summary judgment is improper.
In order to determine whether work conducted by an injured party is maritime or non-maritime requires the Court to undertake an examination of the "historical treatment in the jurisprudence" of the type of work at issue-in this case, seal ring installation-and then, second, the Court must engage in a fact specific inquiry applying the six factor test.
<< PREVNEXT >>
