Take the Fifth

Designated for publication

• Genesis Energy, L.P. v. Danos, L.L.C., 24-20357, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • Elrod, C.J. (Elrod, Duncan, Engelhardt), indemnity, maritime law
  • Affirming that contract between plaintiff and defendant was not a “maritime contract,” and that the indemnity provision was therefore invalid.
  • Genesis Energy appealed the dismissal of its crossclaim for defense and indemnification against Danos, LLC, after a Danos employee was injured transferring from an offshore platform to a vessel during repair work following Hurricane Laura. Genesis relied on a 2008 Master Services Agreement, arguing that Danos was contractually obligated to indemnify it. The district court, however, concluded that the agreement was not a maritime contract, meaning Louisiana law applied under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and barred indemnification provisions. The court therefore granted summary judgment to Danos and dismissed Genesis’s crossclaim with prejudice, prompting this appeal.
  • On review, the Fifth Circuit applied the two-prong test from In re Larry Doiron, Inc. to determine whether the agreement qualified as a maritime contract. The first prong—whether the contract facilitated drilling or production of oil and gas on navigable waters—was undisputed. The second prong—whether the parties expected a vessel to play a substantial role in the work—was the key issue. The court examined the Master Services Agreement, the Job Plan for repairs, and a bid document for the chartered vessel. None of these contracts showed that the vessel was to play a substantial role beyond transporting and housing crew, incidental uses that prior precedent has held insufficient to transform a contract into a maritime one.
  • Genesis argued that declarations from employees showed both parties contemplated the vessel as “necessary” for the project, pointing to its functions as housing, storage, and supply transfer. The court, however, distinguished these uses from cases where vessels had substantial, project-critical roles—such as serving as a work platform with cranes or specialized equipment integral to the work itself. Because the vessel here was only incidental to the repair work, the contract was not maritime. Accordingly, OCSLA mandated that Louisiana law apply, and the indemnification provision was invalid. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Genesis’s crossclaim.

Unpublished Decisions

• U.S. v. Walker, 25-10341, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• Jones v. Gitau, 25-20112, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas), prisoner suit
  • Dismissing Texas state prisoner’s appeal of dismissal of sec. 1983 claim, for failure to pay appeal fee.

• U.S. v. Thompson, 25-40210, appeal from E.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Wilson), criminal, sentence reduction
  • Affirming denial of motion for second sentence reduction.

• U.S. v. Bryant, 24-40763, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Elrod, Smith, Stewart), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Nunez-Alonzo, 24-50844, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Martin, 24-60633, appeal from S.D. Miss.
  • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett), criminal, sentence reduction
  • Affirming denial of motion for sentence reduction.

• Sierra-Lagos v. Bondi, 24-60666, petition for review of BIA order
  • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett), immigration
  • Denying Honduran citizens’ petition for review of BIA order affirming the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

• Joubert v. Guerrero, 24-70007, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas), habeas corpus
  • Denying COA to petitioner from district court’s denial of sec. 2254 petition.