Major Repairs Take Vessel Out of Navigation: Court Denies Claimant Seaman’s Status

Major Repairs Take Vessel Out of Navigation: Court Denies Claimant Seaman’s Status

By: Shiena Normand

Helix Energy Sols. Grp. Inc. v. Gold, 522 S.W.3d 427, 2017 Tex. LEXIS 561, 2017 AMC 1622 (Tex. 2017).In August 2012, Helix Energy Solutions Group purchased the HELIX 534. Prior to the purchase, the 534 was laid up in a shipyard and used as a drill ship. After the purchase, another vessel towed the 534 to the Jurong Shipyard in Singapore and Helix planned to convert the 534 into a well-intervention ship, a ship that services pre-existing offshore wells. The conversion was taking longer than planned so September 2013 Helx dry-towed the 534 from Singapore to Galveston, Texas. Helix’s employee, Kevin Gold was hired on November 2012. Helix hired Gold as an “able bodied seaman,” anticipating that he would serve as an offshore worker. During the time Gold worked on the 534, the ship lacked the ability to navigate on her own due to the overhaul of her engines. Gold reported injuries in December 2012 and in April 2013. Helix paid Gold “maintenance and cure” benefits, which are available to an injured Jones Act seaman, but Helix terminated the payments after Gold allegedly failed to follow his doctor’s orders.Gold sued Helix and Helix’s affiliated entities for additional maintenance-and-cure benefits as well as actual and punitive damages. Gold claimed these remedies under the Jones Act as a “seaman” abroad a “vessel in navigation.” Helix argued that the Jones Act didn’t apply to Gold’s suit and moved for summary judgment on the ground that the 534, while undergoing major overhauls was not a vessel in navigation. The trial court agreed and granted Helix’s motion. Gold appealed and the Court of appeals reversed. The Court of Appeal’s held that a “reasonable fact-finder could determine, based on the Helix 534’s physical characteristics and activities, that the ship was designed to a practical degree for carrying people or things over water, and the Helix 534’s use as a means of transportation on water was a practical possibility.” SC- Helix bore the burden to prove that Gold was not a seaman under the Jones Act.The issue in this case was whether a ship taken out of service while being subjected to a 20-month conversion process, and unable to engage in transportation during the entirety of the claimant’s onboard employment-was “out of navigation” and thus outside the Jones Act. The Texas Supreme Court determined that the vessel was out of navigation as a matter of law and the major overhauls that render watercraft practically incapable of transportation are sufficient to remove those crafts from “vessel in navigation” status. The Texas Supreme Court concluded that there was conclusive proof above and beyond the threshold for summary judgement because the 534 was not in navigation and the Jones Act did not apply during the course of Gold’s employment.