indemnity provision at issue obligated each one to indemnify the others for claims brought by that parties invitees the court below rewrote that contractual conversion to add in some type of verbiage to say that a party can only be the invitee of one of the parties that language is not in the contract it is in many other contracts and this court's considered where the  in the contract however the trial court added to the to the detriment of my pocket now having having made that determination that contractual trouble tension in which if you look at the contract and if you look at that what the district court said let me just let me just point that out the court said this is what the court said about the language of the  all but but i think if i'm allowed to go through the facts and you understand why after the court made that decision if you could only have one invite thought he then time charge situation they contracted to do a job they selected they didn't want to put this ball on it they could've taken it off they wanted the boat that the try to achieve what was crude man managed kept and everything tried when mr grogan after we had this event and just just to jump ahead of it they're doing the filtration services on the back deck of the of the vessel and while they're doing those filtration when you're when you're washing a pipeline sometimes you've got you've got all boil and there it's been eaten up by bacteria and it generates h two s and that's that that was part of what tritone was had to be on the lookout and triton says they're not going to come back out to do that to complete the work on less additional additional safeguards are provided and what they said was dublin t doing that we don't disagree with that but they had the proprietary interest in the vessel they controlled it after that trite and said hey there's danger out here we're not going to come back and do the work because it was essential they weren't going back out there without without talk of providing the services to court determined that was just logistical coordination i mean that that's not them and expressly or imply finding that that's just being courteously logistically cool word name being kind of the ins and outs because people are coming aboard and that that that that doesn't mean it's for the benefit of them well you're on interpretation as a backup in case that was wrong and what the district court said was well even if it targets work did benefit crighton it really didn't  frightened because try to put a set the boat off on another job where there's no way to ask problem where was there was no evidence of any available other jobs but it always could it's not tied to the to this particular project it's for hire for me and there's no evidence there's no evidence of a job that was available to him what he thought back to the poor i mean what was it have to stay there i'm i'm sorry i said it could have gone invitation other than this logistical coordination well yes having compressed air cylinders with manifolds positioned on the back deck of the tritone achiever so the train crew could access oxygen if they did to us was encountered he would not go back out without age to less training and certification for everyone would be personnel will be monitoring for age two less that was triton's procedure i mean i don't know how much more of an end to tell you that they needed these they were not going back to work without these things their procedure after after december one after the age to last event says hey we're going to have in our work we're going to have tiger doing the monitoring and doing these other things that is an invitation i mean we're not going back without you and the another thing i'd like to mention when it would be positioned and he had the authority to stop him from getting on the vessel if he didn't want to get on now i don't see how you could have much more of a nick and imitation when you when you cumulate all of these  may be an invite he and a contractor simultaneously with the same person since then there have been about ten cases i think that involve indemnity in an oil and gas invite cordy's invitee invitee might be broader it can include other people but certainly if you are a contractor of a party you are that already he's invitee and i think that's exactly the situation that we have here where i think that tiger services most certainly was the contractor of w and t and so when you look at the facts in the record i think  overwhelmingly supports the factual finding by judge panel on this particular point the the facts indicate of the worst that this was a multi party multi facility project and that it involved two separate pipelines owned by different portie there were different platforms own different parties there was a partner of all of w and she go max who had an interest in one of the pipelines there were two separate vessels hired for work on this job that being tri provided the achiever for diving services and odyssey marine which provided the odyssey diligence so there rio's a i think all of those things comprise the work site in this case and it was undisputed that w n typically was in charge of the overall operations even though it involved multiple hoardings i think it's also undisputed that the discovery of h two s was not something that any of the already had anticipated at the outset of this job w and she provided quite a detailed request for proposal that set forth the various operations that would be involved that does not address h two s and p and cheese representative candidly admitted they did not expect this to be an issue hints triton did not address that in the its proposal and it wasn't addressed in any of the contractual documents the age to us was detected in sudan always siemens the water treatment company that was filtering the water so that it could be dumped overboard in accordance with the political regulations siemens was monitoring just just charges primarily for another or another substance that they were concerned about in doing that they happen to be using a four port monitor that had h two s capability and that's how they detected the age too so to asses and there is no dispute is a deadly substance and it when detected it requires action so the notion that tritone shut down the job as if this was some rogue decision by triton i think is is misleading because it is a substance that had to be address the manner in which it had to be addressed is not something particular to how triton wanted don it is in the words of mr trash will who was the trying dive superintendent this is not a tritone standard this is a gulf of mexico standard so so this whole procedure was not something unusual that they're trying to orchestrate it here and i think when you look at the facts once the h two s was discovered i think tiger w and she had a prior relationship with tiger and wanted tiger to provide these services mr grogan testified that he had done numerous jobs previously for w n t and never had worked for believe so because i think what if there is a just happen hypothetically  what do we do well i think i mean if you reach that conclusion which the trial court factually did not then i think you have to look at the contract this particular contract i think in visions a situation where a party is in invitee of one or the other because it does not the same as if a contract would say your contract or sub contractors i think the the intent of the parties is that there is a single portie who are those the invite or and i think and in this case the notion that there is some implied consent by the term is invited to use used in a more colloquial sense instead of strict legal sense or not in the contract here i think it is probably used in a colloquial sense i think that yet i think in the industry contract sense i think it means those people who you call has to be brought onto the work side and i think in that respect it is important to note the contractual definition of invitee in the context not just  the in general but in the context of invitee on the work site and i think that ties into the fact that this work site was not just the tritone achiever the work site was this entire this entire project that w and she was in charge of so i think everybody on the big work site was an invite you want somebody i think that is that is probably so but i think what you have to that is true in a general sense but i think in this particular case you're looking at invitees status of the story already use who are involved so it's tiger because in fact the first circuit addressed that issue in the blanks case salsman just a few minutes if i can talking about why i think that case is a significant decision that i think guards the court in this case so in invite the status is determined not so much by a technical definition but really who the party use who does the inviting so i think that to me the board in that case made it quite clear that we're not going to get bogged down into a lot of necessarily a formulaic rule but you look at who did the inviting and in blank's the analysis by the court was similar to what i was talking about earlier that a n r r the operator hired this company and paid their bill and signed their daily work tickets and supervised their work on the job site and him it's a in all are the operator was the invite or now one of the the court did take some time in blanks to distinguish a louisiana third circuit decision  that involved the invitee trespasser issue because of course in blanks one of the significant arguments was that well we know in our contracted with this this service company but at the time of the young student the plaintiff was assisting the drilling company and moving some pipes and does that not change the analysis in the  s and looking at the the trespasser invitee issue the court specifically said we don't have to account for status of these of the or why it was on the blanks drilling side either as an invitee trespasser permit to yet souter a and i think that's the same analysis in this case certainly i object to tiger coming on board the vessel but in terms of the act of doing the inviting it was w and t the point of saying we want to use tiger to get in t purchase order to dictating how the how and what he quit mike was sent out to dictating how the number of people who are on the job site and when that number was reduced and when the people worsen and it was evidenced by the actions of the w and she company man who judge higginbotham you indicated was certainly the man in charge of the the evidence indicated the mr i'll take just a minute if i can to address the arguments by w into on the issue of occupancy w and she tries to argue that the they did not time charter the control over and i think in this case all of the things that i have discussed before certainly indicate the control by w and she not just of the the the movement of the  but of the of the overall job site and in that regard i think it is important to know that the he and she request for proposal does in fact dictate where the vessel would go and what what the order of events would be in terms of getting this particular job done plaintiff relies heavily on the brown decision your honor i know that you were on that pa and i certainly think i think that case is distinguishable in that the relationship and yeshu in the brown case was between o who was as as i understand the facts and they were not for not greatly detailed as it was a per curiam opinion but it is as i appreciated o s i is a boat broker who is hired by the operator williams and and l i think it's a sand lasting company hired by williams and i think the important point about that case so it's a different factual relationship between the parties you're not dealing with of the operator you're dealing with  it relates to as it relates to this vessel i spoke earlier about your honour's about there being about ten cases in this circuit summerfest circuit cases summer or eastern district cases but i think there is a body of about ten cases that address the invitee issue in an indemnity context there are six that i think involve similar fact patterns where you have at issue the the notion of whether a service company doing work on a vessel for an operator or whether the service company is the operators invitee and in every case each one of those six cases which would include alex versus while well control blanks versus marco east versus premier lewis versus glen delta lang rhinoviruses row and terry versus rebstock in each of those cases the court found that the service company service company employee was an invite to the operator despite the fact that there was work done on the vassal and similarly there are three cases where the court am a law is the relationship of the operator to the vassal itself for six which is one of those cases in that case contracted with falcon drilling it also contracted with halliburton there was a halliburton hand who was injured and l o g who has a contract in that case with how burton is trying to pass the indemnity through to halliburton and is arguing that falcon is its invitee and so even though the work in that case obviously is done on the f do if the facts would would show otherwise there are no other questions thank you your own employer to come into mud logging so he comes on the site to do the mud logging work and mirko guy says hey can you help me move piece of pipe and he does it and he gets hurt and so well if mirco had said hey we're not going to go back on the job unless you provide his people to help that would be like our case that's why that that case is is apples and oranges also oil company to use it for sandblasting operations and o s i was found to be the invite or why because it provided the vessel to to williams williams used it for sandblasting operations and as the court said oh i saw i extended an implied invitation and here's a little goes a little bit farther or at the very least did not countermand william's invitation to l l l and l to go on the vessel and because of that o s i was deemed an invite or will compare that to what we have here tri says i'm not doing the work unless these people we have we have additional help we provide targets not getting on the boat unless they put on the boat and ok it's it's exactly what we have here plates the reality that you can have an individual be the invitee of multiple invite tours that those contracts they had an allocation provision this one didn't and in terms in terms of whether or not triton was invited to work the factual findings by the district court that resulted in him saying as an afterthought the tritone was not an invite or was that the work of tiger it was of no benefit to really  no benefit to try to because it had gone down the other job and you know he did not say that the work that they did on site was not a benefit he just said it doesn't matter because he could have been on the job thank you council thank you that w