Lanasse v. Travelers Insurance

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
450 F.2d 580, 1972 A.M.C. 818 (1971)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An indemnity clause will not be construed to cover the indemnitee's own negligence unless that intention is expressed in clear and unmistakable terms. Additionally, liability under a Protection & Indemnity (P&I) insurance policy for an additional assured does not attach unless there is a causal operational relationship between the vessel and the injury, as the vessel must be more than the inert locale of the accident.

Facts:

Cheramie Bo-Truc No. 5, Inc. ('Cheramie') owned the vessel M/V Bo-Truc No. 5 and entered into a time charter agreement with Chevron Oil Company ('Chevron').
Porphire Lanasse was a crew member on the Bo-Truc No. 5.
Chevron ordered the vessel to its fixed offshore production platform, 'Zulu,' to move a welding machine from one side of the platform to the other.
A Chevron crane operator, Plaisance, successfully lowered the welding machine onto the vessel's deck.
Plaisance then moved to a different crane on the platform to lift the machine from the vessel.
After Lanasse attached the crane's hook to the machine, but before Lanasse was safely clear, Plaisance prematurely began lifting.
The premature lift caused the welding machine to swing, first into the vessel's railing and then back into Lanasse, pinning and severely injuring him.
The injury was caused solely by the negligence of Chevron's crane operator.

Procedural Posture:

The injured seaman, Porphire Lanasse, brought a claim against his employer, Cheramie, and the vessel's charterer, Chevron.
Cheramie settled the claim with Lanasse.
Cheramie and Chevron then proceeded to trial in the U.S. District Court, based on a stipulation, to determine which party was ultimately liable for the settlement amount.
The District Court found that the sole proximate cause of the injury was the negligence of Chevron's crane operator and entered a judgment against Chevron for the full settlement amount.
Chevron, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a time charterer, whose employee's sole negligence caused an injury, become entitled to indemnification from the vessel owner under either a charter party's general indemnity clause covering vessel 'operation' or a P&I policy covering liability 'as owner of the vessel'?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Judge John R. Brown

No. A charterer whose employee's sole negligence caused an injury is not entitled to indemnification from the vessel owner under either a general indemnity clause or the vessel's P&I insurance policy. For an indemnity clause to cover a party's own negligence, the contract must express this intention in unmistakable terms; the general phrase 'possession, navigation, management, and operation of the vessel' is insufficient. The operation of a platform crane is not part of the vessel's operation, especially when the vessel's only role was to be the location where the cargo was placed. Similarly, P&I coverage for liability 'as owner of the vessel' requires a causal operational link between the vessel and the injury. Here, the vessel was merely the 'inert locale' of the injury, which was caused by Chevron's separate activities as a platform crane operator, not by any action related to its capacity as a shipowner or charterer. Therefore, neither the indemnity clause nor the P&I policy shifts liability from Chevron to Cheramie.

Analysis:

This case reinforces the maritime law principle of strictly construing indemnity agreements, requiring 'unmistakable terms' for a party to be indemnified against its own negligence. It also clarifies the scope of P&I insurance coverage, establishing the 'causal operational relation' test. This decision is significant in offshore energy operations, as it clearly delineates liability between vessel owners and charterers (often platform operators), preventing charterers from shifting responsibility for their non-maritime negligence onto vessel interests and their insurers.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lanasse v. Travelers Insurance (1971)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature