IN A CONSOLIDATED APPEAL OF TWO CASES BROUGHT UNDER THE JONES ACT, THE APPEAL AS TO ONE EMPLOYEE WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE COURT LACKED JURISDICTION; IN THE OTHER CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT'S ENTRY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF A DRILLING COMPANY WAS AFFI
ROY THIBODEAUX, Plaintiff, v. VAMOS OIL & GAS CO, ET AL., Defendants, v. DPR INTERNATIONAL LLC, Defendant - Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAXUM SERVICES INC, Defendant - Third Party Defendant-Appellant. GABINO SILVA, Plaintiff, v. DPR INTERNATIONAL LLC, ET AL., Defendants, v. DPR INTERNATIONAL LLC, d.b.a. Axxis Drilling, Defendant - Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAXUM SERVICES INC, Third Party Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 11614
May 17, 2007, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In a consolidated appeal of claims brought by employees A and B, appellant contract labor provider sought judicial review of the decisions by the United States District Court for the Western and Eastern Districts of Louisiana granting summary judgment and finding that the labor provider owed appellee drilling company an obligation of indemnity and defense.
OVERVIEW: Pursuant to a master service agreement (MSA), the labor provider assigned employees A and B to work for the drilling company. The employees alleged that they sustained injuries during their work as roustabouts on a drilling vessel and brought Jones Act claims against the drilling company. While the cases had been consolidated, they were in different procedural postures. Employee A had settled his claims against the drilling company, and the labor provider agreed that the settlement was reasonable. Employee B's claims had not settled and were still being litigated. Therefore, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over employee B's claims because he had yet to establish that the drilling company was liable. Regarding employee A's claims, the MSA was clear that the labor provider would defend and indemnify the drilling company against all claims brought by the labor provider's employees in connection with the MSA. The labor provider argued that the contract was invalid because error vitiated its consent and that the indemnity clause was unenforceable under the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act. Both arguments failed.
OUTCOME: The appeal arising from employee B's claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The district court's summary judgment related to employee A's claim was affirmed.
