Case Name: BP OIL PIPELINE CO., on its own behalf as operator and an undivided interest owner and on behalf of those with an interest in the 24 inch Clovelly-Alliance-Meraux ("CAM") Pipeline System located in Louisiana waters, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. WEBB CROSBY TUG, in rem; Crosby Tugs, LLC, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees; In re: In the matter of the complaint of Crosby Tugs, LLC and Webb Crosby, LLC as owners and operators of the M/V Webb Crosby, in a Cause for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability, Crosby Tugs, LLC; Webb Crosby Tug, in rem, Petitioners-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. Murphy Oil Company, USA, Inc.; et al., Claimants, Murphy Oil Company, USA, Inc., Claimant-Appellee, BP Oil Pipeline Company; American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., Claimants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants; American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. Webb Crosby Tug; Crosby Tugs, LLC, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-10
Citations: 302 F. App'x 315
Docket Number: No. 06-30038
Parties: BP OIL PIPELINE CO., on its own behalf as operator and an undivided interest owner and on behalf of those with an interest in the 24 inch Clovelly-Alliance-Meraux (“CAM”) Pipeline System located in Louisiana waters, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. WEBB CROSBY TUG, in rem; Crosby Tugs, LLC, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees. In re: In the matter of the complaint of Crosby Tugs, LLC and Webb Crosby, LLC as owners and operators of the M/V Webb Crosby, in a Cause for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability, Crosby Tugs, LLC; Webb Crosby Tug, in rem, Petitioners-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. Murphy Oil Company, USA, Inc.; et al., Claimants, Murphy Oil Company, USA, Inc., Claimant-Appellee, BP Oil Pipeline Company; American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., Claimants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. Webb Crosby Tug; Crosby Tugs, LLC, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 302
Pages: 315–316

Head Matter:
BP OIL PIPELINE CO., on its own behalf as operator and an undivided interest owner and on behalf of those with an interest in the 24 inch Clovelly-Alliance-Meraux (“CAM”) Pipeline System located in Louisiana waters, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. WEBB CROSBY TUG, in rem; Crosby Tugs, LLC, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees. In re: In the matter of the complaint of Crosby Tugs, LLC and Webb Crosby, LLC as owners and operators of the M/V Webb Crosby, in a Cause for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability, Crosby Tugs, LLC; Webb Crosby Tug, in rem, Petitioners-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. Murphy Oil Company, USA, Inc.; et al., Claimants, Murphy Oil Company, USA, Inc., Claimant-Appellee, BP Oil Pipeline Company; American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., Claimants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. Webb Crosby Tug; Crosby Tugs, LLC, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.
No. 06-30038.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 10, 2008.
Mary Campbell Hubbard, Antonio J. Rodriguez, Henry J. Rodriguez, Fowler Rodriguez & Chalos, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, BP Oil Pipeline Co.
Hugh M. Glenn, Jr., Gregory John McDonald, Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan & O’Ban-non, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co.
James H. Roussel, Nyka Marie Scott, Phelps Dunbar, James A. Cobb, Jr., Emmett, Cobb, Waits & Kessenich, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.
Before GARZA, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
We have carefully considered the record, the briefs, and the arguments of counsel and conclude that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.
AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.