Insurance Dispute Lawyer Blog
In the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, a seemingly minor incident set off a chain of legal events that reverberated through the maritime industry. An underwater sonar device, or towfish, collided with the mooring line of a Shell Offshore drilling rig, causing significant damage. The resulting legal battle involved Shell, the company operating the sonar device (Tesla Offshore), and the vessel’s owner (International Offshore Services). This blog post explores the key issues of the case, the court’s rulings, and the implications for maritime operations.
The Incident:
Tesla Offshore was conducting an archaeological survey of the ocean floor using a towfish pulled by a vessel chartered from International Offshore Services. Despite having prior information about the location of Shell’s drilling rig, Tesla failed to share this with the vessel’s crew. The towfish struck one of the rig’s mooring lines, causing damage and disrupting Shell’s operations.
The Legal Proceedings:
Shell sued both Tesla and International for damages. A jury found Tesla 75% at fault and International 25% at fault. While the appeal was pending, Tesla settled with Shell. The district court then determined that Tesla was entitled to contribution from International toward the settlement.
Key Legal Issues:
-
Towing Vessel Status: International disputed the court’s classification of its vessel as a “towing vessel,” which would require the captain to hold a specific license. The court upheld this classification, emphasizing that the vessel’s primary function was to pull the towfish.
-
Allocation of Fault: Tesla challenged the jury’s allocation of fault, arguing it should have been at least 50/50. The court rejected this, stating there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s decision.
-
Contribution Calculation: Tesla also challenged the calculation of International’s contribution to the settlement, particularly regarding a previous payment International had made to Shell. The court upheld the calculation, giving International credit for the earlier payment.
Implications:
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear communication and adherence to regulations in maritime operations. It also highlights the potential legal complexities that can arise from seemingly straightforward incidents. Companies involved in offshore activities must ensure they have proper licenses and share relevant information to avoid costly legal battles and disruptions to operations
Additional Sources: SHELL OFFSHORE, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff v. TESLA OFFSHORE, L.L.C., Defendant – Appellee Cross-Appellant v. INTERNATIONAL OFFSHORE SERVICES, L.L.C.; INTERNATIONAL MARINE, L.L.C.,
Written by Berniard Law Firm
Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Maritime Law Issues: Navigating the Waters of Maritime Contracts: An Indemnity Puzzle and Seaman or Not? Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Deepwater Horizon Cleanup Worker Injury Case