Articles

Owner of Rig Lost in Hurricane Not Liable for Damage to Vessel that Later Allided with Sunken Rig

Case:  Ensco Offshore Co. v. M/V Satilla
           United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
           611 F. App'x 842 (5th Cir. 2015)

This case arises from the tanker vessel M/T SKS SATILLA, which allided with the unmarked and submerged wreck of the ENSCO 74, a jack-up drilling rig that was lost during Hurricane Ike. In the aftermath of the hurricane, Ensco Offshore Co. discovered its rig was no longer moored in the Gulf of Mexico. Ensco timely searched for the rig using aerial searches of the Gulf of Mexico and subsea sonar searches within the estimated drift path of the rig. These search efforts proved unsuccessful, and Ensco concluded its search. Later evidence showed that within ten hours of Hurricane Ike's passage, the ENSCO 74 had traveled 100.9 miles west-northwest, capsized, and came to rest in 115 feet of water in the South Sabine Point Lightering Area, approximately 65 miles south of Galveston, Texas. The SATILLA allided with the wreck at this location approximately six months later, causing substantial damage to the SATILLA.

Ensco filed a limitation of liability proceeding in federal court. All claims were settled except for those asserted by the owners and operators of the SATILLA--SKS OBO & Tankers AS, and Kristen Gehard Jebsen Skipsrederi AS (collectively, "Claimants"). Claimants asserted that Ensco was liable under 33 U.S.C. §409, which provides the duties of the owner of a vessel sunk in a navigable waterway, for failure to mark the wrecked ENSCO 74.

The case proceeded to a bench trial. After all parties put on the majority of their evidence and the Claimants rested their case, the district court granted Ensco's motion for judgment based on its finding that Ensco conducted a full, diligent, and good-faith search for ENSCO 74, but was unable to find the rig. On appeal, claimants contended that the district court should have placed greater weight on Ensco’s failure to search in the area where ENSCO 74 ultimately rested, since that was an area where the wrecked rig would constitute a hazard to navigation. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, however, reasoning that although the facts now known revealed that Ensco would have found the rig had it searched in the South Sabine Point Lightering Area, the Court could not conclude that the district court committed reversible error in finding, based on the evidence presented at trial, that the search Ensco did conduct was full, diligent, and in good faith.

Related Practices


Related Attorneys

Find an Attorney

Each of the firm's offices include partners, associates and a professional staff dedicated to meeting the challenge of providing the firm's clients with extraordinary service.