In re: In the Matter of Texas Petroleum Investment Company

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF TEXAS 	CIVIL ACTION
PETROLEUM INVESTMENT COMPANY
NO. 24-2344
SECTION: D (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Claimants’ Opposed Motion to Lift Stay/Dissolve the
Limitation 	Injunction, 	filed 	by 	George 	Walcott 	and 	Evelyn 	Walcott.1 	Texas
Petroleum Investment Company (“Petitioner”), as owner of the Vessel LA 9395,
opposes the Motion.2 The Production Group, LLC (the “Production Group”) and David
Hayes 	have 	joined 	Petitioner’s 	Memorandum 	in 	Opposition.3 	After 	careful
consideration of the parties’ memoranda and the applicable law, the Motion is
DENIED.
I. 	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This dispute arises out of an allision involving the Vessel LA 9395 on the inland
waters of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.4 Petitioner is an oil and gas exploration
company that, in addition to owning the Vessel LA 9395, owns the South Pass Block
24 Platform located in Louisiana’s coastal waters.5 At all times pertinent, Petitioner
and the Production Group operated under a Master Service Agreement whereby the
Production Group supplied Petitioner with labor and services for 	Petitioner’s
1 R. Doc. 16.
2 R. Doc. 29.
3 Id.; R. Doc. 33.
4 R. Doc. 1.
5 R. Doc. 12 at p. 9.
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 91 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 11

2
business in the oil and gas exploration industry.6 Taylors International Services, Inc.
(“Taylors”) likewise furnished Petitioner with labor and services pertaining to
Petitioner’s work in the oil and gas exploration industry under a Master Service
Agreement.7
On April 10, 2024, David Hayes, an employee of the Production Group, and
George Walcott, an employee of Taylors, boarded the Vessel LA 9395 after completing
work at the South Pass Block 24 Platform.8 	David Hayes was the operator of the
Vessel LA 9395 when it allided with a submerged navigational obstruction on the
inland navigable waters of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.9 George Walcott, as an
occupant of the vessel, alleges he suffered bodily injuries resulting from the allision.10
On September 26, 2024, Petitioner filed a Verified Complaint for Exoneration
From or Limitation of Liability in this Court, seeking exoneration from or limitation
of liability, civil and maritime, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 30529, et seq, Rule 9(h), and
Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, for any and all loss of life, injuries, damages and/or losses
arising out of the incident that occurred on April 10, 2024 on the inland waters of
Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.11 	Along with its Complaint, Petitioner filed an Ad
Interim Stipulation for Value advising that the fair market value of the Vessel LA
9395 FP and its freight as of April 10, 2024 was $28,000.12
6 Id. at p. 10.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id. at pp. 10–11.
11 R. Doc. 1 at pp. 1–2.
12 R. Doc. 1-5.
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 91 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 11

3
This Court thereafter approved Petitioner’s declaration of value, security, and
Ad Interim Stipulation and issued an Order Directing Issuance of Notice and
Restraining Prosecution of Claims on September 30, 2024, thereby staying any
current and future state court proceedings brought by claimants against Petitioner.13
In addition to the stay, the Court directed that any claims asserted against Petitioner
arising out of this federal limitation action be made by Thursday, March 27, 2025.14
On December 19, 2024, George Walcott and Evelyn Walcott answered the
Verified Complaint and asserted a personal injury claim sustained as a result of the
April 10, 2024 incident.15 Approximately three months later, on March 27, 2025, the
Production Group and David Hayes filed an answer to the Verified Complaint and
asserted their own claims for non-contractual indemnity and/or contribution from
Petitioner.16 The Production Group and David Hayes also asserted claims for
contractual defense and indemnity from Petitioner pursuant to the Master Service
Agreement between the Production Group and Petitioner.17
Thereafter, on April 21, 2025, George Walcott and Evelyn Walcott filed the
instant Motion, seeking to dissolve the limitation injunction and lift the stay in this
matter to pursue their claims in state court.18 George Walcott and Evelyn Walcott
assert that their Motion should be granted because this limitation action is a single
13 R. Doc. 4. On October 1, 2024, George Walcott and his spouse, Evelyn Walcott, filed suit in
Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. George Walcott alleges physical injuries as a result of the allision;
Evelyn Walcott’s claim is for loss of consortium, service, and society of her husband. R. Doc. 12-3 at p.
8. The state court litigation is currently stayed. R. Doc. 12-3.
14 R. Doc. 4 at p. 3.
15 R. Doc. 6 at p. 8.
16 R. Doc. 12 at pp. 9–11.
17 Id.
18 R. Doc. 16.
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 91 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 11

4
claimant case and that they have entered stipulations sufficient under Fifth Circuit
jurisprudence to lift a limitation injunction.19 George and Evelyn Walcott specifically
stipulate to the following:
1. 	Claimants stipulate that Petitioner is entitled to and has the right to
litigate 	all 	issues 	relating 	to 	limitation 	of 	liability 	under 	the
provisions of 46 U.S.C. §§3050130512 [sic] in this Court pursuant to
this Court’s exclusive jurisdiction to determine all issues related to
its right to limit.
2. 	Claimants reserve the right to deny and contest in this Court (and
appellate courts with jurisdiction to review this Court’s orders) all
assertions and allegations made by Petitioner in the Complaint
Seeking Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability filed herein.
3. 	Claimants will not seek in any action, other than the action in this
Court in which this stipulation is filed, any judgment or ruling on the
issue of Petitioner’s 	right to limitation 	of liability, and hereby
consents to waive any claim of res judicata relevant to the issue of
limitation 	of 	liability 	based 	upon 	any 	judgments 	that 	may 	be
rendered in Claimants’ pending state court actions or any other
action.
4. 	Claimants stipulate and agree that if Petitioner is held responsible
for attorneys’ fees and costs which may be assessed against it by a
co-liable defendant party seeking indemnification for attorneys’ fees
and costs, such claim shall have priority over the claim of Claimants
and that Claimants’ recovery will be limited to his pro rata portion
of the proper limitation fund, as reduced by the amounts of such
attorneys’ fees or costs (all as determined by order of this Court and
any appellate review thereof). All other references to the “proper
limitation fund” in this stipulation are intended to mean the proper
limitation fund, as reduced on account of any award of attorneys’ fees
and costs as specified in the preceding sentence.
5. 	Although 	Claimants 	are 	the 	only 	individual 	Claimants 	in 	this
matter, Claimants agree that, in the event they reach a settlement
with Petitioner that is funded before the resolution of the claims of
all Claimants, all settlement funds will be held in trust by Claimants’
counsel until the latter of (i) the resolution of the claims of all
Claimants, whether by judgment or settlement, and (ii) a final
19 R. Doc. 16-1 at p. 6.
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 91 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 11

5
adjudication 	by 	this 	Court 	(including 	any 	appellate 	review) 	of
Petitioner’s entitlement to limitation and the amount of the proper
limitation fund. Claimants further agree that, in the event that the
judgments 	and 	recoveries 	on 	the 	claims 	of 	all 	Claimants
cumulatively exceed the amount established as the proper limitation
fund, 	then 	any 	settlement 	funds 	resulting 	from 	Claimants’
settlement with Petitioner in excess of Claimants’ pro rata portion of
the proper limitation fund shall be distributed to the other Claimants
in proportion to their pro rata percentage of the proper limitation
fund, as determined by the ratio of each Claimants’ judgment or
settlement to the total amount of all judgments or settlements of all
Claimants.
6. 	Claimants agree that, in the event that Claimants’ claims against
Petitioner are reduced to final judgment before the resolution of all
Claimants’ claims, Claimants will defer any effort to execute on such
judgment until the latter of (1) the resolution of the claims of all
Claimants, whether by judgment or settlement, and (2) a final
adjudication 	by 	this 	Court 	(including 	any 	appellate 	review) 	of
Petitioner’s entitlement to limitation and the amount of the proper
limitation fund. Claimants further agree that, in the event that the
judgments 	and 	recoveries 	of 	all 	Claimants 	against 	Petitioner
cumulatively exceed the amount established as the proper limitation
fund, Claimants will not seek to execute on the portion, if any, of a
judgment against Petitioner that exceeds Claimants’ pro rata portion
of 	the 	proper 	limitation 	fund, 	as 	determined 	by 	the 	ratio 	of
Claimants’ 	judgment 	to 	the 	total 	amount 	of 	all 	judgments 	or
settlements of all Claimants.
7. 	Claimants specifically reserve the right to challenge in this Court the
value of the limitation fund, the value of Petitioner’s interest in the
vessels, their engines, tackle, apparel, etc. including any applicable
insurance.
8. 	Claimants agree to abide by this stipulation in all respects unless
Petitioner and Claimants agree in writing to permit Claimants’
departure from the provisions of this stipulation.
9. 	Claimants stipulate that they will not transfer any judgment against
Petitioner to any third party without providing the prospective
transferee, 	in 	advance 	of 	such 	transfer, 	with 	a 	copy 	of 	this
stipulation, as well as prior written notice that execution of the
judgment is subject to, and restricted in accordance with, this
stipulation.
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 91 Filed 01/05/26 Page 5 of 11

6
10. Claimants acknowledge and understand that they had an absolute
right 	to 	retain 	and 	consult 	with 	independent 	counsel 	prior 	to
consenting to this stipulation. Claimants represent that they are
entering into this stipulation of their own free will.20
In sum, George Walcott and Evelyn Walcott ask the Court to accept the stipulations
as sufficient, dissolve the injunction issued against the state court proceeding, and
allow them to pursue their case in state court before a jury.21
Petitioner filed a Memorandum in Opposition,22 to which the Production Group
and David Hayes have joined.23 Petitioner concedes that “in a true ‘single claimant’
circumstance the Walcotts would be entitled to the relief they seek.”24 Instead,
Petitioner claims that “this action does not present such a situation.”25 	Petitioner
thus contends that this limitation action “is not a single claimant proceeding and, for
that reason, Claimants’ motion should be denied.”26 Petitioner maintains that
because the Production Group and David Hayes have made a claim against Petitioner
for indemnity and/or contribution, this limitation action is no longer a single claimant
proceeding 	and 	thus 	the 	dissolution 	of 	the 	Court’s 	limitation 	injunction 	is
inappropriate.27
20 R. Doc. 16-1 at pp. 3–6.
21 Id. at pp. 1–6.
22 R. Doc. 29.
23 R. Doc. 33.
24 R. Doc. 29 at p. 4.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id. at pp. 4–5.
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 91 Filed 01/05/26 Page 6 of 11

7
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Under the Limitation of Liability Act, “[t]he owner of a vessel may bring a civil
action in a district court of the United States for limitation of liability.”28 According
to the Fifth Circuit, “[t]he Limitation Act allows shipowners to limit their liability for
an array of ‘claims, debts, and liabilities’ that might arise from the activities of their
vessels to ‘the value of the vessel and pending freight,’ as long as the incident giving
rise to liability occurred ‘without the privity or knowledge of the owner.’”29 When a
vessel owner brings an action under the Limitation Act, “all claims and proceedings
against the owner related to the matter in question shall cease.”30 	Thus, when a
limitation action is filed, the federal district court “stays all related claims against
the shipowner pending in any forum, and requires all claimants to assert their claims
in the limitation court.”31 	The Limitation Act is designed to protect shipowners in
those cases where “the losses claimed exceed the value of the vessel and freight.”32
The Fifth Circuit has made clear, however, that a shipowner’s right to
limitation is “cabined by the ‘saving to suitors’ clause.”33 The saving to suitors clause
28 46 U.S.C. § 30529(a).
29 In re N&W Marine Towing, L.L.C., 31 F.4th 968, 970 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting 46 U.S.C. § 30505(a)-
(b)); see Magnolia Marine Transp. Co. v. LaPlace Towing Corp., 964 F.2d 1571, 1576 (5th Cir. 1992);
Odeco Oil & Gas Co., Drilling Div. v. Bonnette, 74 F.3d 671, 674 (5th Cir. 1996).
30 46 U.S.C. § 30529(c).
31 Magnolia Marine Transp. Co., 964 F.2d at 1575; see Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. F(3) (“On application of
the plaintiff the court shall enjoin the further prosecution of any action or proceeding against the
plaintiff or the plaintiff’s property with respect to any claim subject to limitation in the action.”). As
noted by the Fifth Circuit, “[b]ecause the Supreme Court determined that the Limitation Act is
incapable of execution without further instructions to the courts, it promulgated procedural rules to
govern limitation actions, which are now contained in Supplemental Admiralty and Maritime Claims
Rule F.” In re N&W Marine Towing, L.L.C., 31 F.4th at 971 n.3 (quoting In re Tetra Applied Techs. L
P, 362 F.3d 338, 340 (5th Cir. 2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
32 Magnolia Marine Transp. Co., 964 F.2d at 1575.
33 In re N&W Marine Towing, L.L.C., 31 F.4th at 971 (quoting Odeco Oil, 74 F.3d at 674) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 91 Filed 01/05/26 Page 7 of 11

8
provides that, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the
courts of the States, of . . . [a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving
to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.”34
According to the Fifth Circuit, the saving to suitors clause carries a presumption in
favor of jury trials and common law remedies.35 Thus, while the Limitation Act gives
shipowners the right to seek limitation of their liability exclusively in federal court,
the saving to suitors clause “affords suitors a choice of remedies.”36
Recognizing the tension created by the Limitation Act and the saving to suitors
clause, the Fifth Circuit has instructed that, “the district court’s primary concern is
to protect the shipowner’s absolute right to claim the [Limitation] Act’s liability cap,
and to reserve the adjudication of that right in the federal forum.”37 The Fifth Circuit
has recognized two instances in which a district court must allow a state court action
to proceed: (1) when the total amount of the claims does not exceed the shipowner’s
declared value of the vessel and its freight; and (2) when all claimants stipulate that
the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the limitation proceeding, and that
the claimants will not seek to enforce a damage award greater than the value of the
ship and its freight until the shipowner’s right to limitation has been determined by
the federal court.38 	“Thus, if the necessary stipulations are provided to protect the
34 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1).
35 In re N&W Marine Towing, L.L.C., 31 F.4th at 971 (quoting Magnolia Marine Transp. Co., 964 F.2d
at 1575) (internal quotation marks omitted).
36 In re N&W Marine Towing, L.L.C., 31 F.4th at 971 (quoting In re Tetra, 362 F.3d at 340) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
37 Odeco Oil, 74 F.3d at 674 (cleaned up).
38 In re N&W Marine Towing, L.L.C., 31 F.4th at 971 (quoting Odeco Oil, 74 F.3d at 674) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also In re Tetra, 362 F.3d at 341.
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 91 Filed 01/05/26 Page 8 of 11

9
rights of the shipowner under the Limitation Act, the claimants may proceed in state
court.”39 The Fifth Circuit has further held that, “a single claimant’s choice of forum
is a sufficient interest to warrant the dissolution of an injunction if the claimant files
stipulations that adequately protect the shipowner’s rights under the [Limitation]
Act.”40
III. 	ANALYSIS
George Walcott and Evelyn Walcott ask the Court to lift the stay and/or
dissolve the limitation injunction in this matter.41 According to the Fifth Circuit,
there are only two instances in which the Court has discretion to lift a stay to allow
claims to proceed outside a limitation action:
(1) when the total amount of the claims does not exceed the shipowner's
declared 	value 	of 	the 	vessel 	and 	its 	freight, 	and 	(2) 	when all
claimants stipulate that the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over
the limitation proceeding, and that the claimants will not seek to enforce
a damage award greater than the value of the ship and its freight until
the shipowner's right to limitation has been determined by the federal
court.42
Here, Claimants George Walcott and Evelyn Walcott do not contend that the
total amount of claims are less than Petitioner’s declared value of the vessel and its
freight – $28,000.43 Thus, the sole question before the Court is whether this limitation
action is a single claimant matter, thereby giving the Court discretion to lift the stay
39 In re Tetra, 362 F.3d at 341 (citing Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 454 (2001)).
40 Inland Dredging v. Sanchez, 468 F.3d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 2006).
41 R. Doc. 16.
42 In re Devall Towing & Boat Service of Hackberry, L.L.C., 827 Fed. Appx. 411, 413 (5th Cir.
2020)(citation modified).
43 See R. Doc. 16-1; R. Doc. 29 at p. 7 (“The Walcotts concede their claims exceed the $28,000 limitation
fund.”).
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 91 Filed 01/05/26 Page 9 of 11

10
and/or dissolve the limitation injunction. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
finds that it does not.
The Production Group and David Hayes have filed claims for non-contractual
indemnity and/or contribution from Petitioner and claims for contractual defense and
indemnity from Petitioner.44 	The Fifth Circuit caselaw is clear on this issue.45
“Parties 	seeking 	indemnification 	and 	contribution 	from 	a 	shipowner 	must 	be
considered claimants within the meaning of the Limitation Act.”46 Thus, the Court
finds that the Production Group and David Hayes are claimants in this limitation
action. The Production Group and David Hayes, however, have not joined the
stipulations set forth by George Walcott and Evelyn Walcott.47 This is fatal to the
instant Motion.48 Because “[t]he law is well-settled that in limitation actions in which
more than one claimant is involved, all claimants must enter into a stipulation to
44 R. Doc. 12 at pp. 9–11.
45 In Odeco Oil, the Fifth Circuit addressed the issue of “whether the parties seeking contribution and
indemnity are ‘claimants’ within the meaning of the Limitation Act, and therefore must actually sign
the stipulation before the injured claimants may proceed in state court.” Odeco Oil, 74 F.3d at 674.
46 Odeco Oil, 74 F.3d at 675 (citation modified); see also Complaint of Port Arthur Towing Co. on Behalf
of M/V Miss Carolyn, 42 F.3d 312, 316 (5th Cir. 1995)(finding that a claimant within the Limitation
Act includes a co-defendant asserting a crossclaim for indemnity, costs, and attorneys’ fees).
47 R. Doc. 29; R. Doc. 33.
48 Claimants George Walcott and Evelyn Walcott spend the near entirety of their memorandum in
support to the instant Motion asserting that their stipulations are sufficient under Fifth Circuit
precedent. See R. Doc. 16-1. These arguments, while having merit, put the proverbial cart before the
horse. The Court does not reach the merits of whether the stipulations are sufficient. The sufficiency
of the stipulations is inconsequential unless all claimants agree to the stipulations. Therefore, the
Motion must be denied because all claimants have not agreed to the stipulations. See In re Nguyen,
No. 01–3510, 2002 WL 31207454, at *3 (E.D. La. Oct. 1, 2002) (Africk, J.)(finding stipulations
insufficient where co-defendant cross-claimants did not join the stipulations at issue).
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 91 Filed 01/05/26 Page 10 of 11

11
dissolve the injunction on related proceedings[,]”49 the Court declines to lift the stay
or dissolve the limitation injunction in this matter.50
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claimants’
Opposed Motion to Lift Stay/Dissolve the Limitation Injunction51 is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, January 5, 2026.
______________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge
49 Matter of Bisso Towboat Co., Inc., CIVIL ACTION No. 22-3479 c/w 22-4115, 2023 WL 2810199, at
*3 (E.D. La. Apr. 6, 2023)(Africk, J.)(citing In re Complaint of Bertucci Contracting Co., LLC, No. 12-
1783, 2015 WL 4994656, at *4 (E.D. La. Aug. 19, 2015) (Barbier, J.)).
50 Fifth Circuit precedent is “clear that a district court abuses its discretion in allowing the state court
action to proceed in the absence of a stipulation, agreed to by all claimants, protecting the shipowner's
right to limitation.” In re Devall Towing & Boat Service of Hackberry, L.L.C., 827 Fed. Appx. at 414
(citation modified)(emphasis added).
51 R. Doc. 16.
Case 2:24-cv-02344-WBV-DPC Document 91 Filed 01/05/26 Page 11 of 11