Frilot L.L.C.

  • Established in 1995
  • Firm Size 45
  • Peer Reviews

    4.7/5.0 (88)
  • Profile Visibility [ i ]
    • #10 in weekly profile views out of 1,032 Law Firms in New Orleans, LA
    • #1,888 in weekly profile views out of 299,964 total law firms Overall
Attorney Awards

Admiralty & Maritime

Frilot L.L.C. is recognized as one of the leading maritime firms in the Gulf South. The Admiralty & Maritime Practice Group has been privileged to represent clients in all courts (both state and federal) in Louisiana and throughout the Gulf Coast Region. From single personal injury claims to multi-million dollar disasters, our attorneys are known for their willingness, readiness and ability to handle cases, even against the most formidable opponents. The Admiralty & Maritime Practice Group has the experience and technical expertise to get the results our clients demand.

The firm currently represents a variety of maritime clients including tug and barge owners and operators, ocean-going vessel owners and operators, oil companies, offshore vessel operators, and oil field service companies, as well as domestic and international P & I clubs and insurers. Representative clients of this section include: UK P&I Club, the American P&I Club, Osprey Underwriting Agency (on behalf of Lloyds), Lexington, AIG, ACE, ACE-INA, Zurich, Hiscox, Tidewater, Baker Hughes, ACBL, Kirby Inland Marine, Dolphin Towing, American Commercial Barge Lines and Nabors Offshore.

Following are types of cases defended by the Admiralty & Maritime Practice Group:

  • Collisions
  • Jones Act Personal Injury/Wrongful Death Claims
  • Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Claims
  • Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Claims
  • Cargo Claims
  • Towers’ Liabilities
  • Vessel Charters
  • Wreck Removal
  • Products Liability
  • Maritime Liens
  • Pollution Liability
  • Salvage
  • Marine Insurance
  • Rig Accidents
  • Vessel Seizures

In addition to handling personal injury and property damage cases arising in the oilfield, firm attorneys litigate the enforceability of defense, indemnity and additional assured provisions contained in Master Service Agreements routinely executed between oilfield producers and their contractors. This type of litigation often involves choice of law analysis, and, under Louisiana law, asserting claims for defense costs and arguing for exceptions to the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act (LOIA). Under the Texas Anti-Indemnity Act (TAIA), we often litigate whether indemnity obligations contained in Master Service Agreements are reciprocal and supported by insurance, or whether insurance obligations stand alone from indemnity obligations.

Representative Cases

Amoco Oil Company v. Lexington Insurance Company
The firm’s work in raising statutory and public-policy defenses to coverage gained notoriety as a result of its role in this case. The case served to set limitations on the recent trend in the offshore oil industry of attempts to circumvent the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act, which otherwise invalidates certain additional assured agreements in liability insurance policies.

Mediterranean Shipping Co. v. Monsanto
Monsanto was successfully defended by lawyers in the Admiralty & Maritime Group from a claim for container demurrage that occurred when thirty containers of seed were seized by Romanian Customs authorities. The shipping company blamed Monsanto for not making clearance arrangements, but a federal court in Houston held that the shipping company was responsible, and refused to allow the demurrage charge.

DeShazo v Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations
Former employee sued former employer to recover damages for injuries he received in auto accident in Egypt in which he was a passenger in a vehicle being driven by an employee of a subsidiary of the employer. USDC for SD Tex. granted summary judgment against the employee. 5th Circuit affirmed, holding that employee was limited to La. worker’s compensation remedies under Texas choice of law rules.

Beasley v. U.S. Welding Service, Inc.
Representing Horizon Offshore Contractors, Inc. and Horizon Vessles, Inc., firm attorneys secured a defense verdict in a maritime personal injury claim filed by a contractor’s employee that was allegedly injured on board a vessel owned and operated by Horizon. In dismissing plaintiff’s claim, the Court found that there was no support for plaintiff’s claims of negligence and unseaworthiness and that plaintiff’s injuries were consistent with injuries suffered prior to the subject accident.

Hasty v. Trans Atlas Boats Inc.
The firm represented the Trans Atlas in a claim brought by an employee who was injured when he intervened in an altercation between deckhands. The altercation erupted when one deckhand, Brown, came to work intoxicated, was sent home, yet re-boarded the vessel and started a fight with another crew member. The plaintiff claimed negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness under general maritime law. The court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that Brown’s subsequent violent behavior was not foreseeable, and Atlas’ actions did not constitute negligence under the Jones Act.

Nunez v. B&B Dredging
The U.S. Fifth Circuit overruled the district court and held that the plaintiff, a dredge dump foreman, was not a Jones Act seaman, even though every other member of his crew was a seaman. Firm attorneys argued successfully that the plaintiff did not have a “substantial connection in duration” to the subject dredge. The Fifth Circuit agreed and clarified its earlier Jones Act seaman status analysis/test. This case remains the Fifth Circuit’s most recent ruling regarding seaman status. Plaintiff’s writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied

In the Matter of Superior Crewboats, Inc.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit overruled the district court and held that a Jones Act seaman, who failed to disclose a purported $2.5 million personal injury lawsuit in his personal bankruptcy proceeding, was precluded from prosecuting his personal injury claim against his employer. The Fifth Circuit held that the seaman was judicially estopped from asserting a Jones Act claim against his employer because he knowingly represented in his bankruptcy pleading that he had “no assets,” which would include a personal injury lawsuit. Frilot L.L.C. represented the interests of plaintiff’s Jones Act employer/vessel owner.

Preatto v. Tidewater Marine, Inc.
The firm defended Tidewater Marine in action for maintenance and cure brought by deckhand who sustained knee and back injury in fall on vessel. Following a jury trial in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, the court found for the deckhand under the Jones Act, but found in favor of the defendant with regard to whether the ship was unseaworthy. Deckhand appealed, and the Fourth Circuit of Louisiana affirmed.

Richard v. Transocean Drilling Co.
Plaintiff brought suit pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 905(b), commonly referred to as the Longshore & Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA), alleging vessel negligence. Transocean was the owner/operator of the rig on which plaintiff was allegedly injured. The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue if fact as to any of the duties pertinent to a 905(b) claim.

People (45)

0 Applied Filters

Refine Results

Admiralty & Maritime, Insurance Defense, Transportation and Trucking

Peer Reviews
No Reviews

Mass Tort & Class Actions, Medical Malpractice & Healthcare

Peer Reviews
4.7/5.0 (20) Reviews

Admiralty & Maritime, Energy & Environmental, Mass Tort & Class Actions, Products Liability

Peer Reviews
5.0/5.0

Medical Malpractice & Healthcare

Peer Reviews
No Reviews

Medical Malpractice & Healthcare, Professional Liability

Peer Reviews
4.6/5.0 (28) Reviews

Labor & Employment, Products Liability

Peer Reviews
5.0/5.0 (1) Review

Insurance Coverage, Professional Liability

Peer Reviews
4.9/5.0 (4) Reviews

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Admiralty & Maritime, Insurance Coverage, Transportation & Trucking

Peer Reviews
5.0/5.0 (1) Review

Admiralty & Maritime, Construction Law, Insurance Coverage & Defense, Mass Tort & Class Actions

Peer Reviews
4.7/5.0 (2) Reviews

Admiralty & Maritime, Mass Tort & Class Actions, Energy & Environmental, Construction Law, Insurance Coverage & Defense

Peer Reviews
4.3/5.0 (3) Reviews

Peer Reviews

4.7/5.0 (88 reviews)
  • Legal Knowledge

    4.7/5.0
  • Analytical Capability

    4.7/5.0
  • Judgment

    4.7/5.0
  • Communication

    4.7/5.0
  • Legal Experience

    4.7/5.0

*Attorneys who only have peer reviews prior to April 15, 2008 are not displayed.

Documents (5)

Documents by this Organization on Martindale.com

Diversity

Commitment to Diversity

Frilot L.L.C. is committed to fostering a working environment that promotes diversity. The firm believes that diversity of experience, diversity in clients and diversity in the courtroom makes us a more powerful legal resource.  We recruit, retain and advance qualified individuals of all backgrounds and cultural influences. This diversity makes for a richer environment which promotes creative thinking and innovative client solutions.

While we are encouraged by what we have accomplished in our pursuit of diversity, the firm strives to strengthen and advance our commitment to attract and retain women and minorities.  Recognizing that recruitment is only one facet of our overall commitment to diversity, we are also focused in our efforts to develop and sustain a work environment that empowers all people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or background, to perform to the best of their abilities.

 

  1. Matter Budgeting and Financial Management

    • Does the firm establish formal budgets for client engagements? Yes
    • Are bills submitted electronically? Yes
  2. Quality Management

    • Does the firm conduct end of matter reviews? Yes
  3. Litigation General Best Practices

    • Does the firm have a formalized new associate litigation training/mentoring program? Yes
    • Does the firm's litigation department have a structured approach to early case assessment? For example: Does your firm implement a standard approach to determine risks and strengths early in a case to assess trial or settlement options? Yes
    • Does the firm have an established records management team to assist clients with records retention, compliance and litigation preparedness? Yes
  4. Litigation eDiscovery Best Practices

    • Does the firm have an established eDiscovery Committee? No
    • Does your firm have any educational programs designed to address the changing federal rules of civil procedure? No
    • Does the firm have a standardized litigation hold program in place for its clients? No
    • Does your firm have a standardized protocol to guide client data collection? (i.e. Maintaining chain of custody, utilizing forensically sound procedures) No
    • Does the firm have a standardized protocol to guide processing clients' edata? (i.e. all data produced in PDF, meta data preserved?) Yes
    • Does the firm have a standardized approach for document reviews across practice groups (i.e. established protocol for eDiscovery review depending on the needs of the case) Yes
  5. Vendor Management

    • Does the firm have preferred vendor relationships? Yes
  6. Knowledge Management

    • Does the firm have a knowledge management program? Yes
  7. Disaster Recovery

    • Does the firm have a disaster recovery plan in place? Yes

Locations (1)

Contact Frilot L.L.C.

Required Fields

Required Fields


By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.