Closer Doesn’t Mean Adjacent under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

Closer Doesn’t Mean Adjacent under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

By: Jamie Johnson

Lewis v. Helmerich & Payne Int’l. Drilling Co., 2015 WL 1040458, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29380 (E.D. La. Mar. 10, 2015) (Fallon, J.).

This suit was brought by an employee of Bay LTD under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”) to recover damages for personal injuries sustained on the Shell Ram Powell Tension Leg Platform. The court had to determine the applicable law as a preliminary matter. The defendants maintained that under the OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. § 1333(a)(2)(A), and its interpretation by the Supreme Court in Rodrigue v. Aetna Insurance Co., 395 U.S. 352 (1969), the law of the state “adjacent” to the facility is applicable as surrogate federal law when there is no substantive federal law. The President was authorized by Congress to publish projected lines of the states seaward when OCSLA was passed initially; however, this has never been done. The Fifth Circuit has determined a four prong test to determine which state is “adjacent” to any fixed structure on the Outer Continental Shelf: (1) geographic proximity; (2) which coast federal agencies consider the subject platform to be "off of;" (3) prior court determinations; and (4) projected boundaries. Snyder Oil Corp. v. Samedan Oil Corp., 208 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir. 2000). Though Louisiana is geographically closer than Alabama to the Ram-Powell Tension Leg Platform, that factor alone is insufficient to overcome the other factors. Thus, in applying the four factors all viewed together, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Alabama is adjacent to the facility