Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES As of June 30, 2013, the Company’s unfunded capital commitments were $150.1 million and included: 17 offshore support vessels for $128.2 million; two inland river liquid tank barges for $2.9 million; five inland river towboats for $10.9 million; one U.S.-flag harbor tug for $1.6 million and other equipment and improvements for $6.5 million. Of these commitments, $55.6 million is payable during the remainder of 2013 with the balance payable through 2015. These unfunded capital commitments exclude $139.4 million related to two VLGC's that the Company's Shipping Services business segment committed to construct during the six months ended June 30, 2013. Subsequent to June 30, 2013, the Company contributed $42.1 million in net cash and other consideration valued at $14.9 million that included certain progress payments made toward the construction of the two VLGC's, the construction contracts for the VLGC's and the related options to construct additional VLGC's to Dorian LPG Ltd. in exchange for a noncontrolling ownership interest (see Note 6). On July 14, 2010, a group of individuals and entities purporting to represent a class commenced a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Terry G. Robin, et al. v. Seacor Marine, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:10-CV-01986 (E.D. La.) (the “Robin Case”), in which they asserted that support vessels, including vessels owned by the Company, responding to the explosion and resulting fire that occurred aboard the semi-submersible drilling rig, the Deepwater Horizon, were negligent in their efforts to save lives and put out the fire and contributed to the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill. The action was part of the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon”, MDL No. 2179 (“MDL”). The complaint sought compensatory, punitive, exemplary, and other damages. In response to this lawsuit, the Company filed petitions seeking exoneration from, or limitation of liability in relation to, any actions that may have been taken by vessels owned by the Company to extinguish the fire. On June 8, 2011, the Company moved to dismiss these claims (with the exception of one claim filed by a Company employee) on various legal grounds. On October 12, 2011, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety, dismissing with prejudice all claims that had been filed against the Company in the limitation actions (with the exception of one claim filed by a Company employee that was not subject to the motion to dismiss). The Court entered final judgments in favor of the Company in the Robin Case and each of the limitation actions on November 21, 2011. On December 12, 2011, the claimants appealed each of those judgments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ("Fifth Circuit"). The claimants' opening brief was submitted on May 7, 2012, and the claimants filed a reply brief on June 1, 2012. Oral argument was not requested by the Fifth Circuit. On December 13, 2012, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The claimants have not petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and their deadline to do so has expired. With respect to the one claim filed by a Company employee, that individual also commenced a separate action in the MDL entitled DuWayne Mason v. Seacor Marine, LLC, No. 2:11-CV-00826 (E.D. La.), in which he alleges sustaining personal injuries not only in connection with responding to the explosion and fire, but also in the months thereafter in connection with the clean-up of oil and dispersants while a member of the crew of the M/V Seacor Vanguard. Although the case is subject to the MDL Court's stay of individual proceedings, on July 16, 2012 the employee sought to sever his case from the MDL. On March 5, 2013, the Court denied the motion, and on April 2, 2013, the employee filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider. The Company filed its response opposing the employee's motion on April 30, 2013, and on May 3, 2013, the Court denied the motion. On May 22, 2013, the employee filed a Notice of Appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On July 24, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action should it ever proceed and the responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend the Company in connection with this matter. Although the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter, the Company does not expect it will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations. On July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, John Wunstell, Jr. and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K) (the “Wunstell Action”), in which they assert, among other theories, that Mr. Wunstell suffered injuries as a result of his exposure to certain noxious fumes and chemicals in connection with the provision of remediation, containment and response services by O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM"), a subsidiary of the Company prior to the ORM Transaction (as defined in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012). The action now is part of the overall MDL. The complaint also seeks to establish a “class-wide court-supervised medical monitoring program” for all individuals “participating in BP's Deepwater Horizon Vessels of Opportunity Program and/or Horizon Response Program” who allegedly experienced injuries similar to those of Mr. Wunstell. The Company believes this lawsuit has no merit and will continue to vigorously defend the action and pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM in connection with the Wunstell Action and claims asserted in the MDL, discussed further below. Although the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter, the Company does not expect it will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations. On December 15, 2010, ORM and National Response Corporation ("NRC"), subsidiaries of the Company prior to the ORM Transaction and SES Business Transaction (as defined in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012), respectively, were named as defendants in one of the several consolidated “master complaints” that have been filed in the overall MDL. The master complaint naming ORM and NRC asserts various claims on behalf of a putative class against multiple defendants concerning the clean-up activities generally, and the use of dispersants specifically. By court order, the Wunstell Action has been stayed as a result of the filing of the referenced master complaint. The Company believes that the claims asserted against ORM and NRC in the master complaint have no merit and on February 28, 2011, ORM and NRC moved to dismiss all claims against them in the master complaint on legal grounds. On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss that ORM and NRC had filed (an amended decision was issued on October 4, 2011 that corrected several grammatical errors and non-substantive oversights in the original order). Although the Court refused to dismiss the referenced master complaint in its entirety at that time, the Court did recognize the validity of the “derivative immunity” and “implied preemption” arguments that ORM and NRC advanced and directed ORM and NRC to (i) conduct limited discovery to develop evidence to support those arguments and (ii) then re-assert the arguments. The Court did, however, dismiss all state-law claims and certain other claims that had been asserted in the referenced master complaint, and dismissed the claims of all plaintiffs that have failed to allege a legally-sufficient injury. A schedule for limited discovery and motion practice was established by the Court and, in accordance with that schedule, ORM and NRC filed for summary judgment re-asserting their derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments on May 18, 2012. Those motions were argued on July 13, 2012 and are still pending decision. In addition to the indemnity provided to ORM, pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM and NRC in connection with these claims in the MDL. Although the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter, the Company does not expect it will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations. Subsequent to the filing of the referenced master complaint, nine additional individual civil actions have been filed in or removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana concerning the clean-up activities generally, which name the Company, ORM and/or NRC as defendants or third-party defendants and are part of the overall MDL. On April 8, 2011, ORM was named as a defendant in Johnson Bros. Corporation of Louisiana v. BP, PLC, et al., No. 2:11-CV-00781 (E.D. La.), which is a suit by an individual business seeking damages allegedly caused by a delay on a construction project alleged to have resulted from the clean-up operations. On April 15, 2011, ORM and NRC were named as defendants in James and Krista Pearson v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. ("BP Exploration"), et al., No. 2:11-CV-00863 (E.D. La.), which is a suit by a husband and wife, who allegedly participated in the clean-up effort and are seeking damages for personal injury, property damage to their boat, and amounts allegedly due under contract. On April 15, 2011, ORM and NRC were named as defendants in Thomas Edward Black v. BP Exploration, et al., No. 2:11-CV-00867 (E.D. La.), which is a suit by an individual who is seeking damages for lost income because he allegedly could not find work in the fishing industry after the oil spill. On April 20, 2011, a complaint was filed in Darnell Alexander, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., No. 2:11-CV-00951 (E.D. La.) on behalf of 117 individual plaintiffs that seek to adopt the allegations made in the referenced master complaint against ORM and NRC (and the other defendants). Plaintiffs in this matter have been since been granted leave to amend their complaint to include 410 additional individual plaintiffs. On October 3, 2012, ORM and NRC were served with a Rule 14(c) Third-Party Complaint by Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C. and Jambon Marine Holdings L.L.C. in their Limitation of Liability action, In the Matter of Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:12-CV-00426 (E.D. La.). This Third-Party Complaint alleges that if claimant David Dinwiddie, who served as a clean-up crewmember aboard the M/V JAMBON SUPPLIER II vessel during the clean-up efforts, was injured as a result of his exposure to dispersants and chemicals during the course and scope of his employment, then said injuries were caused by the third-party defendants. On November 25, 2012, ORM was named as a defendant in Victoria Sanchez v. American Pollution Control Corp. et al., No. 2:12-CV-00164 (E.D. La.), a maritime suit filed by an individual who allegedly participated in the clean-up effort and sustained personal injuries during the course of such employment. On December 17, 2012, the Court unsealed a False Claims Act lawsuit naming ORM as a defendant, Dillon v. BP, PLC et al., No. 2:12-CV-00987 (E.D. La.)., which is a suit by an individual seeking damages and penalties arising from alleged false reports and claims made to the federal government with respect to the amount of oil burned and dispersed during the clean-up. The federal government has declined to intervene in this suit. On April 8, 2013, the Company, ORM, and NRC were named as defendants in William and Dianna Fitzgerald v. BP Exploration et al., No. 2:13-CV-00650 (E.D. La.), which is a suit by a husband and wife whose son allegedly participated in the clean-up effort and became ill as a result of his exposure to oil and dispersants. Finally, on April 17, 2013, ORM was named as a defendant in Danos et al. v. BP America Production Co. et al., No. 2:13-CV-03747 (removed to E.D. La.), which is a suit by eight individuals seeking damages for dispersant exposure either as a result of their work during clean-up operations or as a result of their residence in the Gulf. By court order, all nine of these additional individual cases have been stayed until further notice. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these matters but believes they are without merit and does not expect that they will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position or its results of operations. On February 18, 2011, Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., and Transocean Deepwater Inc. (collectively “Transocean”) named ORM and NRC as third-party defendants in a Rule 14(c) Third-Party Complaint in Transocean's own Limitation of Liability Act action, which is part of the overall MDL, tendering to ORM and NRC the claims in the referenced master complaint that have already been asserted against ORM and NRC. Transocean, Cameron International Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and M-I L.L.C. also filed cross-claims against ORM and NRC for contribution and tort indemnity should they be found liable for any damages in Transocean's Limitation of Liability Act action and ORM and NRC have asserted counterclaims against those same parties for identical relief. Weatherford U.S., L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc. (collectively "Weatherford") had also filed cross-claims against ORM and NRC, but recently moved to voluntarily dismiss these cross-claims without prejudice. The Court granted Weatherford's motion on February 8, 2013. As indicated above, the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these actions but believes they are without merit and does not expect that these matters will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position or its results of operations. On November 16, 2012, 668 individuals who served as beach clean-up workers in Escambia County, Florida during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response commenced a civil action in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Escambia County, Abney et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., No. 2012-CA-002947, in which they allege, among other things, that ORM and other defendants engaged in the contamination of Florida waters and beaches in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 376 and injured the plaintiffs by exposing them to dispersants during the course and scope of their employment. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on January 13, 2013, Abney et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et la., No. 3:13-CV-00024 (N.D. Fla.), and on January 16, 2013, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) issued a Conditional Transfer Order (“CTO”) transferring the case to the MDL, subject to any timely-filed notice of objection from the plaintiffs. Upon receipt of a notice of objection from the plaintiffs, a briefing schedule was set by the JPML, and so a stay of proceedings and suspension of deadlines was sought and obtained by the Court in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Following briefing before the JPML, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and consolidated with the MDL on April 2, 2013. On April 22, 2013, a companion case to this matter was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Abood et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., No. 3:13-CV-00284 (N.D. Fla.), which alleges identical allegations against the same parties but names an additional 174 plaintiffs, all of whom served as clean-up workers in various Florida counties during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. A CTO was issued by the JPML on May 2, 2013, no objection was filed by the plaintiffs, and the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and consolidated with the MDL on May 10, 2013. By court order, both of these matters have been stayed until further notice. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these matters but believes they are without merit and does not expect that these matters will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position or its results of operations. Separately, on March 2, 2012, the Court announced that BP Exploration and BP America Production Company ("BP America") (collectively "BP") and the plaintiffs had reached an agreement on the terms of two proposed class action settlements that will resolve, among other things, plaintiffs' economic loss claims and clean-up related claims against BP. The parties filed their proposed settlement agreements on April 18, 2012 along with motions seeking preliminary approval of the settlements. The Court held a hearing on April 25, 2012 to consider those motions and preliminarily approved both settlements on May 2, 2012. A final fairness hearing took place on November 8, 2012. The Court granted final approval to the Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement on December 21, 2012, and granted final approval to the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement on January 11, 2013. Both class action settlements are currently on appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Although neither the Company, ORM, or NRC are parties to the settlement agreements, the Company, ORM, and NRC are listed as released parties on the releases accompanying both settlement agreements. As the releases for both settlements have been deemed valid and enforceable by the district court, if the Fifth Circuit affirms these decisions, class members who did not file timely requests for exclusion will be barred from pursuing economic loss, property damage, personal injury, medical monitoring, and/or other released claims against the Company, ORM, and NRC. At this time, the Company expects these settlements to reduce ORM's potential exposure, if any, from some of the pending actions described above, and continues to evaluate the settlements' impacts on these cases. On January 29, 2013, HEPACO, LLC ("HEPACO"), served a demand for arbitration upon ORM, in which HEPACO claims that ORM owes HEPACO an additional fee of $20,291,178.92 under the parties' Management Services Agreement (“MSA”), dated June 1, 2010. According to HEPACO, the MSA requires ORM to pay HEPACO an additional fee of 30% of total charges paid under the MSA ("Surcharge") to compensate HEPACO for U.S. Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' insurance or Jones Act insurance and related risks attendant to the work when contract requires labor to be performed over, adjoining and/or in water. ORM denies liability for the Surcharge, intends to vigorously defend against the claim, and has sought indemnity for any resulting judgment and related attorneys fees from BP America and BP Exploration. ORM has advised BP that, pursuant to the Bridge Agreement HOU-WL4-3066 between BP and ORM, effective as of June 1, 2010, under which ORM managed and oversaw, for BP, subcontractors, such as HEPACO, in connection with on-shore services related to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BP ultimately is responsible for the payment of the Surcharge should HEPACO be determined to be entitled to recover it under the MSA. ORM is defending against three collective action lawsuits, each asserting failure to pay overtime with respect to individuals who provided service on the Deepwater Horizon spill response (the “DPH FLSA Actions”) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). These cases - Dennis Prejean v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01045) (the “Prejean Action”); Baylor Singleton et. al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et. al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01716) (the “Singleton Action”); and Himmerite et al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01533) (the “Himmerite Action”) - were each brought on behalf of certain individuals who worked on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and who were classified as independent contractors. The Prejean, Himmerite and Singleton Actions were each filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and then subsequently consolidated with the overall MDL. The Himmerite and Singleton Actions have since been automatically stayed pending further scheduling by the Court, pursuant to the procedures in the MDL. In the Prejean Action, ORM has answered the complaint, a scheduling order has been issued, and plaintiffs have, among other things, filed a Motion for Conditional Certification to which ORM's response is due by August 22, 2013. The limitations periods for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to the Prejean, Himmerite and Singleton actions have all been tolled pending further action by the Court. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from any of these DPH FLSA Actions, but believes they are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend against them. In the course of the Company's business, it may agree to indemnify the counterparty to an agreement. If the indemnified party makes a successful claim for indemnification, the Company would be required to reimburse that party in accordance with the terms of the indemnification agreement. Indemnification agreements generally are subject to threshold amounts, specified claim periods and other restrictions and limitations. In connection with the SES Business Transaction and the ORM Transaction, the Company remains contingently liable for certain indemnification obligations, including potential liabilities relating to work performed in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. In the case of the SES Business Transaction, such potential liabilities may not exceed the purchase consideration received by the Company for the SES Business Transaction and in the case of the ORM Transaction, are subject to a negotiated cap. The Company currently is indemnified under contractual agreements with BP with respect to such potential liabilities. In the normal course of its business, the Company becomes involved in various other litigation matters including, among other things, claims by third parties for alleged property damages and personal injuries. Management has used estimates in determining the Company's potential exposure to these matters and has recorded reserves in its financial statements related thereto where appropriate. It is possible that a change in the Company's estimates of that exposure could occur, but the Company does not expect such changes in estimated costs would have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

As of June 30, 2013, the Company’s unfunded capital commitments were $150.1 million and included: 17 offshore support vessels for $128.2 million; two inland river liquid tank barges for $2.9 million; five inland river towboats for $10.9 million; one U.S.-flag harbor tug for $1.6 million and other equipment and improvements for $6.5 million. Of these commitments, $55.6 million is payable during the remainder of 2013 with the balance payable through 2015. These unfunded capital commitments exclude $139.4 million related to two VLGC's that the Company's Shipping Services business segment committed to construct during the six months ended June 30, 2013. Subsequent to June 30, 2013, the Company contributed $42.1 million in net cash and other consideration valued at $14.9 million that included certain progress payments made toward the construction of the two VLGC's, the construction contracts for the VLGC's and the related options to construct additional VLGC's to Dorian LPG Ltd. in exchange for a noncontrolling ownership interest (see Note 6).

On July 14, 2010, a group of individuals and entities purporting to represent a class commenced a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Terry G. Robin, et al. v. Seacor Marine, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:10-CV-01986 (E.D. La.) (the “Robin Case”), in which they asserted that support vessels, including vessels owned by the Company, responding to the explosion and resulting fire that occurred aboard the semi-submersible drilling rig, the Deepwater Horizon, were negligent in their efforts to save lives and put out the fire and contributed to the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill. The action was part of the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon”, MDL No. 2179 (“MDL”). The complaint sought compensatory, punitive, exemplary, and other damages. In response to this lawsuit, the Company filed petitions seeking exoneration from, or limitation of liability in relation to, any actions that may have been taken by vessels owned by the Company to extinguish the fire. On June 8, 2011, the Company moved to dismiss these claims (with the exception of one claim filed by a Company employee) on various legal grounds. On October 12, 2011, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety, dismissing with prejudice all claims that had been filed against the Company in the limitation actions (with the exception of one claim filed by a Company employee that was not subject to the motion to dismiss). The Court entered final judgments in favor of the Company in the Robin Case and each of the limitation actions on November 21, 2011. On December 12, 2011, the claimants appealed each of those judgments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ("Fifth Circuit"). The claimants' opening brief was submitted on May 7, 2012, and the claimants filed a reply brief on June 1, 2012. Oral argument was not requested by the Fifth Circuit. On December 13, 2012, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The claimants have not petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and their deadline to do so has expired.

With respect to the one claim filed by a Company employee, that individual also commenced a separate action in the MDL entitled DuWayne Mason v. Seacor Marine, LLC, No. 2:11-CV-00826 (E.D. La.), in which he alleges sustaining personal injuries not only in connection with responding to the explosion and fire, but also in the months thereafter in connection with the clean-up of oil and dispersants while a member of the crew of the M/V Seacor Vanguard. Although the case is subject to the MDL Court's stay of individual proceedings, on July 16, 2012 the employee sought to sever his case from the MDL. On March 5, 2013, the Court denied the motion, and on April 2, 2013, the employee filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider. The Company filed its response opposing the employee's motion on April 30, 2013, and on May 3, 2013, the Court denied the motion. On May 22, 2013, the employee filed a Notice of Appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On July 24, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action should it ever proceed and the responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend the Company in connection with this matter. Although the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter, the Company does not expect it will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations.

On July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, John Wunstell, Jr. and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K) (the “Wunstell Action”), in which they assert, among other theories, that Mr. Wunstell suffered injuries as a result of his exposure to certain noxious fumes and chemicals in connection with the provision of remediation, containment and response services by O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM"), a subsidiary of the Company prior to the ORM Transaction (as defined in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012). The action now is part of the overall MDL. The complaint also seeks to establish a “class-wide court-supervised medical monitoring program” for all individuals “participating in BP's Deepwater Horizon Vessels of Opportunity Program and/or Horizon Response Program” who allegedly experienced injuries similar to those of Mr. Wunstell. The Company believes this lawsuit has no merit and will continue to vigorously defend the action and pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM in connection with the Wunstell Action and claims asserted in the MDL, discussed further below. Although the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter, the Company does not expect it will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations.

On December 15, 2010, ORM and National Response Corporation ("NRC"), subsidiaries of the Company prior to the ORM Transaction and SES Business Transaction (as defined in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012), respectively, were named as defendants in one of the several consolidated “master complaints” that have been filed in the overall MDL. The master complaint naming ORM and NRC asserts various claims on behalf of a putative class against multiple defendants concerning the clean-up activities generally, and the use of dispersants specifically. By court order, the Wunstell Action has been stayed as a result of the filing of the referenced master complaint. The Company believes that the claims asserted against ORM and NRC in the master complaint have no merit and on February 28, 2011, ORM and NRC moved to dismiss all claims against them in the master complaint on legal grounds. On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss that ORM and NRC had filed (an amended decision was issued on October 4, 2011 that corrected several grammatical errors and non-substantive oversights in the original order). Although the Court refused to dismiss the referenced master complaint in its entirety at that time, the Court did recognize the validity of the “derivative immunity” and “implied preemption” arguments that ORM and NRC advanced and directed ORM and NRC to (i) conduct limited discovery to develop evidence to support those arguments and (ii) then re-assert the arguments. The Court did, however, dismiss all state-law claims and certain other claims that had been asserted in the referenced master complaint, and dismissed the claims of all plaintiffs that have failed to allege a legally-sufficient injury. A schedule for limited discovery and motion practice was established by the Court and, in accordance with that schedule, ORM and NRC filed for summary judgment re-asserting their derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments on May 18, 2012. Those motions were argued on July 13, 2012 and are still pending decision. In addition to the indemnity provided to ORM, pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM and NRC in connection with these claims in the MDL. Although the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter, the Company does not expect it will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations.

Subsequent to the filing of the referenced master complaint, nine additional individual civil actions have been filed in or removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana concerning the clean-up activities generally, which name the Company, ORM and/or NRC as defendants or third-party defendants and are part of the overall MDL. On April 8, 2011, ORM was named as a defendant in Johnson Bros. Corporation of Louisiana v. BP, PLC, et al., No. 2:11-CV-00781 (E.D. La.), which is a suit by an individual business seeking damages allegedly caused by a delay on a construction project alleged to have resulted from the clean-up operations. On April 15, 2011, ORM and NRC were named as defendants in James and Krista Pearson v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. ("BP Exploration"), et al., No. 2:11-CV-00863 (E.D. La.), which is a suit by a husband and wife, who allegedly participated in the clean-up effort and are seeking damages for personal injury, property damage to their boat, and amounts allegedly due under contract. On April 15, 2011, ORM and NRC were named as defendants in Thomas Edward Black v. BP Exploration, et al., No. 2:11-CV-00867 (E.D. La.), which is a suit by an individual who is seeking damages for lost income because he allegedly could not find work in the fishing industry after the oil spill. On April 20, 2011, a complaint was filed in Darnell Alexander, et al. v. BP, PLC, et al., No. 2:11-CV-00951 (E.D. La.) on behalf of 117 individual plaintiffs that seek to adopt the allegations made in the referenced master complaint against ORM and NRC (and the other defendants). Plaintiffs in this matter have been since been granted leave to amend their complaint to include 410 additional individual plaintiffs. On October 3, 2012, ORM and NRC were served with a Rule 14(c) Third-Party Complaint by Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C. and Jambon Marine Holdings L.L.C. in their Limitation of Liability action, In the Matter of Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:12-CV-00426 (E.D. La.). This Third-Party Complaint alleges that if claimant David Dinwiddie, who served as a clean-up crewmember aboard the M/V JAMBON SUPPLIER II vessel during the clean-up efforts, was injured as a result of his exposure to dispersants and chemicals during the course and scope of his employment, then said injuries were caused by the third-party defendants. On November 25, 2012, ORM was named as a defendant in Victoria Sanchez v. American Pollution Control Corp. et al., No. 2:12-CV-00164 (E.D. La.), a maritime suit filed by an individual who allegedly participated in the clean-up effort and sustained personal injuries during the course of such employment. On December 17, 2012, the Court unsealed a False Claims Act lawsuit naming ORM as a defendant, Dillon v. BP, PLC et al., No. 2:12-CV-00987 (E.D. La.)., which is a suit by an individual seeking damages and penalties arising from alleged false reports and claims made to the federal government with respect to the amount of oil burned and dispersed during the clean-up. The federal government has declined to intervene in this suit. On April 8, 2013, the Company, ORM, and NRC were named as defendants in William and Dianna Fitzgerald v. BP Exploration et al., No. 2:13-CV-00650 (E.D. La.), which is a suit by a husband and wife whose son allegedly participated in the clean-up effort and became ill as a result of his exposure to oil and dispersants. Finally, on April 17, 2013, ORM was named as a defendant in Danos et al. v. BP America Production Co. et al., No. 2:13-CV-03747 (removed to E.D. La.), which is a suit by eight individuals seeking damages for dispersant exposure either as a result of their work during clean-up operations or as a result of their residence in the Gulf. By court order, all nine of these additional individual cases have been stayed until further notice. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these matters but believes they are without merit and does not expect that they will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position or its results of operations.

On February 18, 2011, Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., and Transocean Deepwater Inc. (collectively “Transocean”) named ORM and NRC as third-party defendants in a Rule 14(c) Third-Party Complaint in Transocean's own Limitation of Liability Act action, which is part of the overall MDL, tendering to ORM and NRC the claims in the referenced master complaint that have already been asserted against ORM and NRC. Transocean, Cameron International Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and M-I L.L.C. also filed cross-claims against ORM and NRC for contribution and tort indemnity should they be found liable for any damages in Transocean's Limitation of Liability Act action and ORM and NRC have asserted counterclaims against those same parties for identical relief. Weatherford U.S., L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc. (collectively "Weatherford") had also filed cross-claims against ORM and NRC, but recently moved to voluntarily dismiss these cross-claims without prejudice. The Court granted Weatherford's motion on February 8, 2013. As indicated above, the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these actions but believes they are without merit and does not expect that these matters will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position or its results of operations.

On November 16, 2012, 668 individuals who served as beach clean-up workers in Escambia County, Florida during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response commenced a civil action in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Escambia County, Abney et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., No. 2012-CA-002947, in which they allege, among other things, that ORM and other defendants engaged in the contamination of Florida waters and beaches in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 376 and injured the plaintiffs by exposing them to dispersants during the course and scope of their employment. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on January 13, 2013, Abney et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et la., No. 3:13-CV-00024 (N.D. Fla.), and on January 16, 2013, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) issued a Conditional Transfer Order (“CTO”) transferring the case to the MDL, subject to any timely-filed notice of objection from the plaintiffs. Upon receipt of a notice of objection from the plaintiffs, a briefing schedule was set by the JPML, and so a stay of proceedings and suspension of deadlines was sought and obtained by the Court in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Following briefing before the JPML, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and consolidated with the MDL on April 2, 2013. On April 22, 2013, a companion case to this matter was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Abood et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., No. 3:13-CV-00284 (N.D. Fla.), which alleges identical allegations against the same parties but names an additional 174 plaintiffs, all of whom served as clean-up workers in various Florida counties during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. A CTO was issued by the JPML on May 2, 2013, no objection was filed by the plaintiffs, and the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and consolidated with the MDL on May 10, 2013. By court order, both of these matters have been stayed until further notice. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these matters but believes they are without merit and does not expect that these matters will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position or its results of operations.

Separately, on March 2, 2012, the Court announced that BP Exploration and BP America Production Company ("BP America") (collectively "BP") and the plaintiffs had reached an agreement on the terms of two proposed class action settlements that will resolve, among other things, plaintiffs' economic loss claims and clean-up related claims against BP. The parties filed their proposed settlement agreements on April 18, 2012 along with motions seeking preliminary approval of the settlements. The Court held a hearing on April 25, 2012 to consider those motions and preliminarily approved both settlements on May 2, 2012. A final fairness hearing took place on November 8, 2012. The Court granted final approval to the Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement on December 21, 2012, and granted final approval to the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement on January 11, 2013. Both class action settlements are currently on appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Although neither the Company, ORM, or NRC are parties to the settlement agreements, the Company, ORM, and NRC are listed as released parties on the releases accompanying both settlement agreements. As the releases for both settlements have been deemed valid and enforceable by the district court, if the Fifth Circuit affirms these decisions, class members who did not file timely requests for exclusion will be barred from pursuing economic loss, property damage, personal injury, medical monitoring, and/or other released claims against the Company, ORM, and NRC. At this time, the Company expects these settlements to reduce ORM's potential exposure, if any, from some of the pending actions described above, and continues to evaluate the settlements' impacts on these cases.

On January 29, 2013, HEPACO, LLC ("HEPACO"), served a demand for arbitration upon ORM, in which HEPACO claims that ORM owes HEPACO an additional fee of $20,291,178.92 under the parties' Management Services Agreement (“MSA”), dated June 1, 2010. According to HEPACO, the MSA requires ORM to pay HEPACO an additional fee of 30% of total charges paid under the MSA ("Surcharge") to compensate HEPACO for U.S. Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' insurance or Jones Act insurance and related risks attendant to the work when contract requires labor to be performed over, adjoining and/or in water. ORM denies liability for the Surcharge, intends to vigorously defend against the claim, and has sought indemnity for any resulting judgment and related attorneys fees from BP America and BP Exploration. ORM has advised BP that, pursuant to the Bridge Agreement HOU-WL4-3066 between BP and ORM, effective as of June 1, 2010, under which ORM managed and oversaw, for BP, subcontractors, such as HEPACO, in connection with on-shore services related to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BP ultimately is responsible for the payment of the Surcharge should HEPACO be determined to be entitled to recover it under the MSA.

ORM is defending against three collective action lawsuits, each asserting failure to pay overtime with respect to individuals who provided service on the Deepwater Horizon spill response (the “DPH FLSA Actions”) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). These cases - Dennis Prejean v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01045) (the “Prejean Action”); Baylor Singleton et. al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et. al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01716) (the “Singleton Action”); and Himmerite et al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01533) (the “Himmerite Action”) - were each brought on behalf of certain individuals who worked on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and who were classified as independent contractors. The Prejean, Himmerite and Singleton Actions were each filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and then subsequently consolidated with the overall MDL. The Himmerite and Singleton Actions have since been automatically stayed pending further scheduling by the Court, pursuant to the procedures in the MDL. In the Prejean Action, ORM has answered the complaint, a scheduling order has been issued, and plaintiffs have, among other things, filed a Motion for Conditional Certification to which ORM's response is due by August 22, 2013. The limitations periods for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to the Prejean, Himmerite and Singleton actions have all been tolled pending further action by the Court. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from any of these DPH FLSA Actions, but believes they are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend against them.

In the course of the Company's business, it may agree to indemnify the counterparty to an agreement. If the indemnified party makes a successful claim for indemnification, the Company would be required to reimburse that party in accordance with the terms of the indemnification agreement. Indemnification agreements generally are subject to threshold amounts, specified claim periods and other restrictions and limitations.

In connection with the SES Business Transaction and the ORM Transaction, the Company remains contingently liable for certain indemnification obligations, including potential liabilities relating to work performed in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. In the case of the SES Business Transaction, such potential liabilities may not exceed the purchase consideration received by the Company for the SES Business Transaction and in the case of the ORM Transaction, are subject to a negotiated cap. The Company currently is indemnified under contractual agreements with BP with respect to such potential liabilities.

In the normal course of its business, the Company becomes involved in various other litigation matters including, among other things, claims by third parties for alleged property damages and personal injuries. Management has used estimates in determining the Company's potential exposure to these matters and has recorded reserves in its financial statements related thereto where appropriate. It is possible that a change in the Company's estimates of that exposure could occur, but the Company does not expect such changes in estimated costs would have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of operations.