Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

Commitments And Contingencies

v3.8.0.1
Commitments And Contingencies
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments And Contingencies
e Company's capital commitments as of March 31, 2018 by year of expected payment were as follows (in thousands):
 
Remainder of 2018
 
2019
 
Total
Ocean Services
$
148

 
$

 
$
148

Inland Services
2,910

 
757

 
3,667

 
$
3,058

 
$
757

 
$
3,815


Ocean Services’ and Inland Services’ capital commitments included other equipment and various vessel improvements. Subsequent to March 31, 2018, the Company committed to purchase one previously leased-in harbor tug and other equipment for $13.3 million.
During 2012, the Company sold National Response Corporation (“NRC”), NRC Environmental Services Inc., SEACOR Response Ltd., and certain other subsidiaries to J.F. Lehman & Company, a private equity firm (the “SES Business Transaction”).
On December 15, 2010, O’Brien’s Response Management L.L.C. (“ORM”) and NRC were named as defendants in one of the several “master complaints” filed in the overall multi-district litigation relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and clean-up in the Gulf of Mexico, which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “MDL”). The “B3” master complaint naming ORM and NRC asserted various claims on behalf of a putative class against multiple defendants concerning the clean-up activities generally and the use of dispersants specifically. Both prior to and following the filing of the aforementioned master complaint, individual civil actions naming the Company, ORM, and/or NRC alleging B3 exposure-based injuries and/or damages were consolidated with the MDL and stayed pursuant to court order. The Company has continually taken the position that all of the B3 claims asserted against it, ORM, and NRC have no merit. On February 16, 2016, all but eleven B3 claims against ORM and NRC were dismissed with prejudice (the “B3 Dismissal Order”). On August 2, 2016, the Court granted an omnibus motion for summary judgment as it concerns ORM and NRC in its entirety, dismissing the remaining eleven plaintiffs’ against ORM and NRC with prejudice (the “Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs’ Dismissal Order”). The deadline to appeal both of these orders has expired.
Both prior to and since the issuance of the B3 Dismissal Order and the Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs’ Dismissal Order, a number of individual actions in the MDL have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. At present, the only remaining claim is the following:
On April 8, 2013, the Company, ORM, and NRC were named as defendants in William and Dianna Fitzgerald v. BP Exploration et al., No. 2:13-CV-00650 (E.D. La.) (the “Fitzgerald Action”), which is a suit by a husband and wife whose son allegedly participated in the clean-up effort and became ill as a result of his exposure to oil and dispersants. While the decedent in the Fitzgerald Action’s claims against ORM and NRC were dismissed by virtue of the Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs’ Dismissal Order, the claim as against the Company remains stayed.
Following a status conference with the Court on February 17, 2017, the Court issued several new pretrial orders in connection with the remaining claims in the MDL.
On July 18, 2017, the Court issued an order dismissing all remaining “B3” claims in the MDL with prejudice, with the exception of certain claims specifically listed on an exhibit annexed to the order (the “Master MDL B3 Dismissal Order”). Nathan Fitzgerald, the decedent in the Fitzgerald Action, was listed on the exhibit annexed to the Master MDL B3 Dismissal Order. The Court has since issued a list of those plaintiffs compliant with its previous orders and thus whose “B3” claims remain pending; the last version of this compliance list was issued on April 6, 2018 and the claim for the decadent in the Fitzgerald Action remains listed as a pending claim. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter, to the extent it remains viable, but believes it is without merit and does not expect that it will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
On February 18, 2011, Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., and Transocean Deepwater Inc. (collectively “Transocean”) named ORM and NRC as third-party defendants in a Rule 14(c) Third-Party Complaint in Transocean’s own Limitation of Liability Act action, which is part of the overall MDL, tendering to ORM and NRC the claims in the referenced master complaint that have already been asserted against ORM and NRC. Transocean, Cameron International Corporation (“Cameron”), Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and M-I L.L.C. (“M-I”) also filed cross-claims against ORM and NRC for contribution and tort indemnity should they be found liable for any damages in Transocean's Limitation of Liability Act action and ORM and NRC asserted counterclaims against those same parties for identical relief. The remainder of the aforementioned cross-claims in Transocean’s limitation action remain pending, although the Company believes that the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these matters has been reduced as a result of the various developments in the MDL, including the B3 Dismissal Order and Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs’ Dismissal Order, and does not expect that these matters will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
On November 16, 2012, 668 individuals who served as beach clean-up workers in Escambia County, Florida during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response commenced a civil action in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Escambia County, Abney et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., No. 2012-CA-002947, in which they allege, among other things, that ORM and other defendants engaged in the contamination of Florida waters and beaches in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 376 and injured the Plaintiffs by exposing them to dispersants during the course and scope of their employment. This case was removed to federal court and ultimately consolidated with the MDL on April 2, 2013. On April 22, 2013, a companion case to this matter was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Abood et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., No. 3:13-CV-00284 (N.D. Fla.), which alleges identical allegations against the same parties but names an additional 174 Plaintiffs, all of whom served as clean-up workers in various Florida counties during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. This case was consolidated with the MDL on May 10, 2013. By court order, both of these matters were then stayed since they were consolidated with the MDL. The names of only a very small percentage of the claimants in these two matters appear to be listed on the exhibit to the Master MDL B3 Dismissal Order and the Court has denied the other plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration, which has since been appealed. The Company believes that the original B3 Dismissal Order should reduce the potential exposure resulting from, if not bar, claims against ORM stemming from these matters and does not expect that these matters will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Separately, on March 2, 2012, the Court announced that BP Exploration and BP America Production Company (“BP America”) and (collectively “BP”) and the Plaintiffs had reached an agreement on the terms of two proposed class action settlements that will resolve, among other things, Plaintiffs’ economic loss claims and clean-up related claims against BP. Both settlements were granted final approval by the Court, all appeals have concluded, and the deadline for submitting claims with respect to both settlements has passed. Although neither the Company, ORM, nor NRC are parties to the settlement agreements, the Company, ORM, and NRC are listed as released parties on the releases accompanying both settlement agreements. Consequently, class members who did not file timely requests for exclusion are barred from pursuing economic loss, property damage, personal injury, medical monitoring, and/or other released claims against the Company, ORM, and NRC. The Company believes these settlements have reduced the potential exposure in connection with the various cases relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and clean-up and continues to evaluate the settlements’ impacts on these cases.
In the ordinary course of the Company’s business, it may agree to indemnify its counterparty to an agreement. If the indemnified party makes a successful claim for indemnification, the Company would be required to reimburse that party in accordance with the terms of the indemnification agreement. Indemnification agreements generally, but not always, are subject to threshold amounts, specified claim periods and other restrictions and limitations.
In connection with the SES Business Transaction, the Company remains contingently liable for work performed in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. Pursuant to the agreement governing the sale, the Company’s potential liability to the purchaser may not exceed the consideration received by the Company for the SES Business Transaction. The Company is currently indemnified under contractual agreements with BP for the potential liabilities relating to work performed in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response.
In the ordinary course of its business, the Company becomes involved in various other litigation matters including, among other things, claims by third parties for alleged property damages and personal injuries. Management has used estimates in determining the Company’s potential exposure to these matters and has recorded reserves in its financial statements related thereto where appropriate. It is possible that a change in the Company’s estimates of that exposure could occur, but the Company does not expect such changes in estimated costs would have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.