## Facts

- Ronnie Gene Bass, a seaman/roughneck employed by Phoenix Seadrill/78, Ltd. (“Phoenix”), worked on the offshore drilling rig Big Foot I in the Gulf of Mexico.
- Branham Industries, Inc. designed and fabricated the rig’s derrick, and Crown Rig Building Services, Inc. erected it.
- On May 8, 1980, five days into drilling operations, a 40-pound jack handle fell from a platform about 80 feet above the rig floor and struck Bass on the head, causing severe injuries.
- The jack handle pivoted on a steel pin that was supposed to be secured by a cotter key; after the accident, the cotter key could not be found, and the parties disputed who was responsible for installation and inspection.
- Bass sued Phoenix under the Jones Act and general maritime law; Phoenix filed third-party claims against Branham and Crown Rig; Bass later asserted negligence and strict liability claims directly against Branham and Crown Rig.
- Before trial, Bass and Phoenix executed a disclosed “Mary Carter” agreement: Phoenix paid $210,000 for a release from liability, and Bass agreed to assign Phoenix up to $178,000 from any recovery against Branham and Crown Rig.
- After a bench trial, the district court found Phoenix, Branham, and Crown Rig liable in allocated proportions and awarded damages to Bass, but it voided portions of the Bass–Phoenix settlement while enforcing Bass’s release of Phoenix.

## Issues

1. Whether a district court may, after a full trial and absent traditional contract-law defects, partially void or rewrite terms of a disclosed Mary Carter settlement (including repayment/assignment provisions) while enforcing the settling defendant’s release.
2. Whether the district court clearly erred in its findings on liability, allocation of fault, and damages arising from the offshore injury.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s liability and damages findings.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed the portion of the judgment that partially abrogated the Bass–Phoenix settlement.
- The court held the settlement must be enforced according to its terms, including the assignment/repayment provisions, and the district court lacked authority on the stated grounds to selectively invalidate those terms post-trial.

## Legal Principles

- A settlement agreement is a contract generally enforceable according to its terms when negotiated at arm’s length with counsel and without fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or similar vitiating defect.
- A court may require disclosure of a Mary Carter agreement and permit adversarial testing of bias and incentives, but it may not, after trial, rewrite or selectively excise provisions based on perceived unfairness or hindsight dissatisfaction with the consideration.
- Challenges to the fairness or collusive effect of a partial settlement in a multiparty case must be raised in a timely manner; post-judgment modification is disfavored absent recognized grounds for rescission or reformation.
- Appellate review of maritime/Jones Act factual findings on causation, fault allocation, and damages is deferential; findings supported by the record are upheld unless clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit left intact the trial court’s liability allocation and damages award for Bass’s offshore injury but required full enforcement of the disclosed Mary Carter settlement as written, rejecting post-trial judicial modification absent traditional contract-law defects.


Bass v. Phoenix Seadrill/78, Ltd., 749 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1985)