Smith v. Enervest Oprt, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 13, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 05-30800
_____________________
WILLIAM M. SMITH
Plaintiff,
ENERVEST OPERATING LLC;
Defendant - Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant,
STEADFAST INSURANCE CO.,
Third Party Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GAUBERT OIL CO. INC.,
Third Party Defendant - Appellee.
__________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:03-CV-1922
_________________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
After study of the briefs and argument of the parties, we are
convinced that the district court did not err in rejecting the
application of maritime law and applying Louisiana law in the
interpretation of the relevant contract. We reach this conclusion
because it is clear, and indeed undisputed, that the Master Service
Contract is not a maritime contract. Even when the instant

-- 1 of 2 --

2
purchase order is considered with that contract, we are fully
convinced that the delivery of the oil by barge was incidental to
the sale of the oil. See Lucky-Goldstar, Int’l (America) Inc. v.
Phibro Energy Int’l, Ltd., 958 F.2d 58, 59-60 (5th Cir. 1992). To
the extent that maritime services were performed under the
contract, those services were neither predominant nor separable
from the non-maritime obligation. Id. Consequently, maritime law
does not apply to the contract. For the foregoing reasons, the
judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --