Op-Ed: Fifth Circuit shapes offshore contract jurisprudence

Chris Hannan.

Whether offshore energy contracts are maritime or non-maritime has long generated complex, multiparty disputes over indemnity and additional insured obligations, particularly because state anti‑indemnity statutes may apply to non-maritime contracts pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act (OCSLA).

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s watershed decision in In re Larry Doiron, Inc., 879 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2018), established the governing two‑part test for this analysis: (1) whether the contract is to provide services facilitating drilling or production of oil and gas on navigable waters (or, outside oil and gas, maritime commerce,see Barrios v. Centaur, L.L.C., 942 F.3d 670, 677 (5th Cir. 2019).), and if so, (2) whether the contract provides for or the parties expect that a vessel will play a substantial role in performing the contract, as opposed to merely incidental vessel use.

The Fifth Circuit has issued a recent series of incremental “building block” decisions refining how the Doiron test applies. Understanding these cases and the trends they exemplify is critical to structuring, commercially and legally viable contracting regimes.

• Earnest v. Palfinger Marine USA, Inc., 90 F.4th 804 (5th Cir. 2024). During lifeboat launch and recovery drills on an OCS non‑vessel tension‑leg platform, a corroded cable failed, causing a lifeboat to fall approximately 80 feet and resulting in injuries. Palfinger had contracted with Shell to inspect and maintain the platform’s lifeboat systems. The Fifth Circuit held the lifeboat maintenance contract was maritime, even though the platform was not a vessel, because the lifeboats themselves qualified as vessels, and thus the contractual maintenance/testing operations under the contract related directly to “vessels.”. The court rejected the argument that the lifeboats were merely incidental to the non-vessel work under the contract (i.e. inspection/maintenance of the lifeboat system/equipment installed on the platform) because they were not “used” in a colloquial operational sense for that work. Takeaways: The Doiron analysis focuses on the operations contemplated within the four corners of the contract rather than the broader operational context. A contract for maintenance or repair of a vessel, even a lifeboat, will likely be deemed “classically maritime.”

• In re Complaint of Offshore Oil Services, 150 F.4th 677 (5th Cir. 2025); and Genesis Energy, L.P. v. Danos, L.L.C., 152 F.4th 648 (5th Cir. 2025). Both these decisions (issued within weeks of each other) involved similar fact patterns, with offshore workers injured in connection with repair/maintenance operations on non-vessel OCS platforms during projects that also involved support vessels.  In each case, the platform owner had a master service contract (MSC) with the repair contractors, as well as separate contracts with vessel owners/operators to provide vessels for transport, equipment storage, and/or personnel accommodations. In each case, the vessel owners sought indemnity and additional insured coverage as members of the platform owner’s “group” under the MSCs. The Fifth Circuit held the MSCs were non-maritime and thus applied the Louisiana anti-indemnity statute to invalidate the indemnity and additional insurance provisions. The scopes of the MSCs were limited to non‑vessel platform services (and in Offshore Oil Services, the parties did not “check the box” for marine‑vessel specification on the contract form); and vessels did not play a substantial role in the repairs and were merely incidental to the non-vessel platform-based contractual work. Takeaways: A vessel’s role limited to transportation, housing, or storage in support of an otherwise non-maritime project is insufficient to render related (but otherwise non-maritime) contracts maritime.

• In re Complaint of Aries Marine Corp., 166 F.4th 521 (5th Cir. 2026). A jack‑up vessel positioned to assist with repairs on a non-vessel OCS platform experienced a “punch‑through” event, causing injuries. The platform owner had an MSC with a gas‑free/fire‑watch contractor and a separate charter party for the jack‑up vessel to provide transport, housing, crane support, and workspace for other contractors. An injured gas‑free/fire‑watch employee asserted claims against the vessel operator, which in turn sought indemnity and insurance from the gas-free/fire-watch contractor under the MSC (as third-party beneficiary member of the platform owner’s “group”). The Fifth Circuit held the MSC was non-maritime: the vessel’s transport and work‑platform functions were merely incidental to the gas‑free/fire‑watch scope, and there was no shared expectation – specifically between the MSC parties – that vessel services were required for that limited work scope. Takeaways: Party expectations are assessed bilaterally between the contracting parties. Absent shared expectation that a vessel will play a substantial role in the specific contracted services, the contract may be non-maritime, even if other contracts contemplate vessel involvement for other scopes of the project.

The Doiron line of cases will continue to evolve as parties test maritime contract boundaries, requiring offshore operators to monitor developments and align contract terms with intended risk allocation in ways that will be enforceable under governing law.

Chris Hannan is partner in the Maritime Practice Group at Jones Walker.