Maritime Law Does Not Apply To A Contract Whose Vessels Are Incidental To The Work Performed

The location or situs of an injury does not demand that maritime law apply to indemnity clauses in an offshore service contract where the contract is platform centric. "The actual use of vessels in completing a contract may play a role when the expectations of the parties or the terms of a contract remain unclear."In re Complaint of Offshore Oil Services, 24-30674 (5th Cir. Sept. 4, 2025). The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has once again clarified the application ofDoiron.

The Fifth Circuit inIn re Doiron, Inc., 879 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc), offered a two-part test to determine whether an offshore service contract was subject to maritime law: First, was the contract intended to provide services to facilitate the drilling of oil and gas in navigable waters and, if so, then second, did the parties expect that a vessel play a substantial role in the completion of the contract?"Idat 576.Doironconcerned a master service agreement and oral work order to remove flowback equipment from an offshore platform. The "work" did not require a vessel, but a barge with a crane was used to lift equipment onto the platform to assist with the work. The crane operations injured a contractor's employee. The Fifth Circuit held that the master service agreement was not subject to maritime law because it did not provide for and the parties did not anticipate that a vessel would play a substantial role in the completion of the work. The nature of the injury and claims were not dispositive of the law applicable to the contractual indemnities.

Compare these facts to those inEarnest v. Palfinger Marine USA Inc., 90 F.4th 804 (5th Cir. 2024), where maritime law applied to work accomplished on a platform but related to a vessel.Earnestinvolved a "contract to inspect and repair lifeboats on an oil platform located on the Outer Continental Shelf." The contract focused on the inspection, maintenance, and repair of lifeboats on a tension leg platform. During a platform emergency drill, a lifeboat did not launch properly, causing injury when it free-fell into the water. Maritime law applied to the interpretation of the indemnity clause. Although the the work took place on a platform, the "nature" and "character" of the contract involved vessels. A "spatial analysis" was inapplicable.

Recently, inOffshore Oil Services, supra, the parties entered into a generic master service agreement involving both platform and, when requested, vessel activities. Fieldwood issued a work order to Island Operations Inc. (IOC) under the service contract to provide platform services. The contractual indemnities extended to the other third parties working for Fieldwood (unless prohibited by Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act, La. R.S. 9 § 2780 (LOIA)). Fieldwood also contracted with Offshore Oil Services Inc. (OOSI) to provide crewboat services to,inter alia, transport IOC employees to platforms. An IOC employee was injured in a personnel basket transfer from an OOSI vessel. IOC was contractually obligated to indemnify OOSI but for the application of the LOIA. Summary judgments were filed. Even though IOC employees occasionally transferred equipment from an OOSI vessel, the use of vessels was incidental to the work contemplated under the master service agreement. Maritime law was not applicable.

The Fifth Circuit is concerned with the focus of a contract and the intention of the parties versus the situs or a specific activity that was temporal when determining the applicable law.Offshore Oil Servicesillustrates howDoironandEarnestanalyses are consistent when the facts are considered.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.