## Facts

- TPT Transportation Company (TPT) owned a barge that needed cleaning and gas-freeing so it could pass United States Coast Guard inspection and receive new cargo.
- TPT hired HBM River Plant, Inc. (HBM) to remove residue from a prior toluene cargo and to clean and gas-free the barge.
- On August 15, 1994, while HBM’s cleaning crew was performing the work, an explosion occurred when a spark ignited toluene vapors.
- The parties agreed the spark was most likely caused by the crew’s use of an ungrounded hose that was not designed to remove flammable cargo.
- Four HBM employees were injured in the explosion.
- TPT filed an admiralty limitation-of-liability action regarding the injured workers’ claims.
- The workers’ personal-injury claims were settled without a judicial determination of whether the workers were seamen or longshore/harbor workers.
- After settlement, TPT sought indemnity from HBM to recover (i) attorney’s fees incurred defending the personal-injury claims and (ii) the sums TPT paid to settle those claims, asserting TPT had not been negligent.
- HBM moved for summary judgment on TPT’s indemnity demand.

## Issues

1. Whether TPT, as vessel owner, could obtain implied Ryan-type indemnity (warranty of workmanlike performance) from HBM for the amounts paid to settle the injured employees’ claims and for TPT’s attorney’s fees incurred defending those claims.
2. Whether the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (including 33 U.S.C. § 905(b)) barred or limited TPT’s indemnity claim against HBM as the injured workers’ employer.

## Decision

- The court granted HBM’s motion for summary judgment.
- TPT was not entitled to recover from HBM the settlement payments made to the injured workers or the attorney’s fees incurred defending the personal-injury claims.
- The court denied TPT’s requested indemnity relief and left TPT to bear its own settlement and defense costs.

## Legal Principles

- Ryan-type implied indemnity based on a contractor’s warranty of workmanlike performance is not automatic; the vessel seeking indemnity must satisfy the required predicates, including a sufficient showing that the contractor’s breach exposed the vessel to liability in a manner that supports shifting the loss.
- Settlement of personal-injury claims, standing alone, does not establish entitlement to implied maritime indemnity; the indemnitee must still prove the conditions for indemnity rather than rely only on the fact of settlement and claimed lack of negligence.
- The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act restricts a vessel’s ability to obtain indemnity from an injured worker’s employer, and § 905(b) limits the employer’s exposure beyond workers’ compensation in ways that foreclose broad implied-indemnity recovery by the vessel.

## Conclusion

In this limitation-of-liability case arising from a barge-cleaning explosion that injured HBM’s employees, the court entered summary judgment for HBM and held that TPT could not shift to HBM the money TPT paid in settlement or the attorney’s fees TPT incurred defending the personal-injury claims, because TPT did not establish a valid basis for Ryan-type implied indemnity and the LHWCA limits indemnity claims against the injured workers’ employer.


In re TPT Transportation, 191 F. Supp. 2d 717 (2001)