beacon December 2005The facts
A regularly-scheduled crew change was
to take place on 7 May 1998 from the
Oceanographic Research Vessels Act
(ORVA) registered vessel, R/V C-Searcher.
Several of the crew from the vessel
departed that morning via helicopter,
which took them to Fourchon/Louisiana
heliport. The seismic crew’s employer
provided a van from the company Central
Dispatch, Inc. (CDI) to transport their
employees from Fourchon to the New
Orleans airport.
Passengers were six seismic employees
of Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS), the
charterer and Skuld’s member, and
one was a crewmember (regular crew)
of Edison Chouest, the vessel owner. On
the way to the airport, when riding north
along Louisiana Highway 1 near Golden
Meadow, a dump truck with a load of
limestone veered across the centerline
on the highway into the oncoming van’s
lane, striking and causing it to flip and
roll several times before landing on its
roof. The dump truck struck the van just
behind the driver’s door, continued
in the same direction and ended in the
Bayou.
Injuries
One crewman was killed in the accident
with the others suffering varying degrees
of injury, the most serious involving David
Andrews (PGS employee). David suffered a
fractured neck, spinal cord injury and brain
infarct, which rendered him a ventilatordependent
quadriplegic.
News of the accident reached PGS
Exploration office in Houston and PGS
corporate headquarters in Oslo, Norway,
and the entire company was devastated by
the tragedy. The PGS Exploration senior
management immediately flew to the
area to co-ordinate, inspect and inform/
take care of their employees and families.
David Andrew’s care
Given the nature of David’s injuries it is
perhaps not surprising that he did not
do well in the first general hospital to
which he was admitted. It was agreed to
transfer him to a specialised institution in
Denver, Colorado for further assessment
and treatment.
Even though PGS knew that David’s care
would be expensive and that the commitment
would last years, it never tried to
shirk its legal responsibilities towards
David. Over the ensuing months, PGS
ensured that David received optimal care
in various medical establishments before
arranging for him to be moved into his
own house with medical staff on call to
support him.
Lawsuits/legal responsibilities
All injured employees and the family
of the deceased employee retained
counsel and filed suits in the Galveston,
Texas Federal Court and some in the
State Court in LaFouche Parish, LA. The
lawsuits were then gathered in Galveston.
Initially, the plaintiffs in the case sued
PGS, the van transport company and the
owner of the dump truck.
PGS’/Skuld’s lawyers took an active
role in the depositions to forestall any
potential liability claims against PGS for
the alleged negligent hiring of the van
company. In fact, before any lawsuit was
filed, an accident reconstructionist was
hired to capture the evidence at the scene
so that it could be used in anticipated
litigation.
In becoming involved proactively in the
case, PGS was successful in focusing the
claims against the van company and the
This case dates back to a very tragic day in May 998, when David Andrews and his fellow crewmembers
were returning from their rotation duty aboard the R/V C-Searcher. It shows how members
can be held liable for crewmembers’ medical expenses even though they are not negligent or at fault.
And it shows the terrible price that David Andrews and his colleagues paid for an accident nobody
could have foreseen.
A human tragedy
legal notesbeacon December 2005
dump truck owner, leaving PGS exposed
for maintenance and cure responsibility
only. Since U.S. law allows a seaman’s
employer to recover maintenance and
cure benefits from third parties that
cause injury to an employee, thereby
triggering the obligation to pay maintenance
and cure, PGS and the injured
workers entered into a sharing agreement
for potential monies recovered and
agreed to jointly prosecute the case to
conclusion.
Phase I
Mediation: On 22 June 1999, the parties
attended mediation in an effort to partially
settle the matters in controversy. In the
mediation, David’s lawyer stated that
David would most probably need to be on
a ventilator for the remainder of his life
and, with assistance, should be able to
speak on a limited basis and operate a
wheelchair and computer through the use
of a ‘puff tube’. He estimated that David’s
life expectancy was approximately 30
years and that for medical care, full-time
nurses and the like he would need
approximately USD 20 million for lifetime
care. PGS asserted its entitlement to
recover approximately USD 1.2 million it
had paid at that point in maintenance and
cure for the injured crewmembers who
survived the accident.
During the negotiations, PGS, with Skuld’s
concurrence, decided to accept only a portion
of that to which it was due when it accepted
USD 200,000 in partial reimbursement out
of a negotiated settlement fund of
By Ragnhild Rødsjø,
Senior Claims Executive,
Syndicate 4,
Skuld Oslo
The van landed on its roof killing one crewmember and injuring the othersVIewPoInt
4 beacon December 2005
USD 3.1 million. However, it reserved its
right to recover the remainder of monies
paid, and to be paid the equivalent outlay
for maintenance and cure benefits
from other potentially responsible parties.
Without PGS’ agreement to temporarily
forego its right to recover all monies
currently due, any settlement would
have been impossible. This agreement
allowed the case to proceed so that David
and PGS could jointly prosecute their
claims, seeking full reimbursement on
all counts.
The resolution of the case against the
owner of the dump truck and the van
company was termed Phase I because
evidence revealed, both through the
accident reconstruction and witness
statements during the early stage of the
case against the dump truck owners and
the van company, that there were good
grounds to sue the dump truck manufacturer.
Because the land-based insurance
programs of the dump truck company
and van owners were limited, it dictated
an early settlement with those defendants
and provided a vehicle for the more
expensive products liability action.
David’s part of the Phase I settlement was
placed in a Special Needs Trust to provide
supplemental funds for his welfare.
These funds later became an important
part of the settlement arrangements
between PGS and David Andrews.
Phase II
The product liability case against the
manufacturer was set for trial in Louisiana
during March 2001. There were two major
issues:
1) A metal support extending from the
dump truck’s gearbox to its tie rod
failed. The police believed that this
failed at impact and did not cause the
accident, while the dump truck owners’
expert believed that this part failed just
before the accident, causing the dump
truck to veer into the van’s lane.
2) The dump truck driver stated that it
was a typical workday as he travelled
south on Louisiana Highway 1 when
he felt a jolt and the truck began to
veer uncontrollably into the opposite
lane. He stated that he lost consciousness
and woke up immediately before
his truck was entering the Bayou. The
dump truck driver testified with utmost
confidence that he was in his own lane
when he felt the jolt and began crossing
the centerline of the highway.
Although on balance the plaintiff had a
strong case, it is not easy to predict how a
jury will respond to evidence. Unfortunately,
the jury in question issued a verdict in
favour of the manufacturers. This was
appealed and before the appeal was
heard, the parties reached an amicable
settlement.
Structured settlement/annuities
In addition, in taking immediate steps to
secure David’s benefits under the AD&D
policy, foregoing its right of reimbursement
under the Phase I settlement and
participating in the products liability
litigation, both by incurring defence costs
and by contributing beyond its contractual
limit to the expenses of the case, PGS/
Skuld have provided David with stateof-
the-art medical care. From the date
of the incident through November 2003,
when the case was finally settled, cure
expenditures had reached approximately
USD 2 million.
During the case, PGS did not attempt to
claim that David had reached Maximum
Medical Improvement (MMI) because of
the fact that he was dependent on his
ventilator. The weight of controlling US
legal authority held that David’s treatment
was not merely palliative because the
ventilator kept his condition from
deteriorating. This notion was also
David Andrew’s injuries have left him a ventilatordependent
quadriplegic
