Thomas Alleman v. Omni Energy Svc Corp., et

Citation: Not availableDocket: 08-30089

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; June 10, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the case involves multiple parties, primarily Thomas J. Alleman and other plaintiffs against Omni Energy Services Corporation, which operated a helicopter that crashed in the Gulf of Mexico while transporting employees to oil platforms. The central legal issues are whether the helicopter service contract qualifies as a maritime contract and the applicability of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) versus the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA). 

The district court ruled that the helicopter service contract was not maritime in nature and granted summary judgment to W&T Offshore, Inc., which contracted with Omni for the helicopter services. Additionally, the court ruled in favor of Omni, stating that DOHSA applied to the claims of Bert Hollier, who died after floating in the ocean for over two hours following the accident. 

The appeals court affirmed the district court's decision regarding the maritime contract issue but reversed and remanded the decision concerning the applicability of DOHSA. A general contract between Omni and W&T included a mutual indemnity clause and a choice of law clause specifying that U.S. maritime law governs the contract. The incident occurred on December 17, 2004, when the helicopter, piloted by Ernie Smith, crashed after the main rotor struck a boat landing near the helipad, leading to injuries for two passengers and the death of Hollier.

Several cases were consolidated in the district court, where it was determined that (1) the contracts between Omni and W&T fall under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), rather than maritime law, making the indemnity provisions under the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act (LOIA) invalid; and (2) Hollier’s tort claims are governed by the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), not OCSLA. Omni appeals, asserting that maritime law should govern the contract, while Hollier appeals for OCSLA to apply to his tort claims. 

The standard of review for summary judgment is de novo, with the requirement that there be no genuine issues of material fact for judgment as a matter of law. OCSLA applies to the seabed and artificial structures on the outer Continental Shelf, and the laws of the adjacent state (Louisiana) apply unless inconsistent with federal law. The applicability of OCSLA hinges on a three-part test: (1) the controversy arises on a situs covered by OCSLA, (2) federal maritime law does not apply of its own force, and (3) state law is consistent with federal law. 

In this case, it is agreed that the controversy arose on an offshore platform and Louisiana law is consistent with federal law, leaving the question of whether maritime law applies to the contract. The determination of a contract's maritime nature involves assessing its "nature and subject-matter" to establish whether it relates to maritime service or transactions. The contract does not need to be solely based on high seas activity for it to be classified as maritime.

The determination of whether a contract is maritime hinges on its reference to maritime service or transactions, as established in this circuit through a two-part inquiry. This inquiry examines both historical jurisprudence and six specific factors: (1) the provisions of the work order in effect at the time of injury, (2) the actual work performed by the crew, (3) whether the crew worked aboard a vessel in navigable waters, (4) the relationship of the work to the vessel's mission, (5) the principal work of the injured worker, and (6) the work being performed at the time of injury. In this context, it is noted that Omni's contract to transport workers to an oil platform by helicopter raises the question of whether such transportation constitutes a maritime contract. Precedents indicate that admiralty jurisdiction applies to helicopter accidents over water, as established in *Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire*, where the Supreme Court recognized the significant relationship of helicopter operations to traditional maritime activities. Similarly, this court has affirmed that helicopter transportation serving offshore drilling structures is significantly related to maritime activities. However, important distinctions exist between maritime tort and contract law; maritime tort law applies to incidents occurring on the high seas with a maritime relationship, while maritime contract law focuses on the contract's nature and character. The Supreme Court clarified that aircraft are generally excluded from maritime law contexts other than tort, emphasizing that the principles governing maritime matters are not applicable to air commerce, which operates independently of maritime rules.

Admiralty law does not pertain to aircraft operations, whether over land or water, and helicopters are not classified as "vessels" for maritime commerce purposes. The contract in question involved providing helicopters for transporting workers to offshore platforms, but since this relates to aviation services, it is not considered a maritime contract. Consequently, federal maritime law does not apply, and instead, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) governs, rendering the contract's indemnity provision unenforceable.

Regarding tort claims, the court determined that the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) applies to deaths occurring beyond a marine league from shore or over 12 nautical miles for aviation accidents. However, OCSLA is applicable to incidents occurring on oil platforms, and the Supreme Court has ruled that DOHSA does not extend to accidents that happen on these platforms. The case at hand involved a helicopter accident on an oil platform, which qualifies as an incident "actually occurring" on that platform, thus invoking OCSLA.

The court affirmed the district court’s ruling that OCSLA applies to contractual indemnity and contribution claims. It reversed the district court's decision that DOHSA governs the tort claims, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.