A federal appeals court affirmed a lower court ruling in a Travelers Cos. Inc. unit’s favor in a dispute with an Axa SA unit and Lloyd’s of London over a judgment awarded to an injured worker.

Braithwaite, Louisiana-based United Bulk Terminals Davant LLC hired New Orleans-based Centaur LLC, a marine and industry construction company, to build a concrete containment wall around the edge of the dock, according to Tuesday’s ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans in Devin Barrios v. River Ventures, LLC, XL Specialty Insurance Co.; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America.

During the project, Centaur’s employees relied on New Orleans-based River Ventures for crew boat services. To govern the dock project, United Bulk and Centaur entered into a master service contract in which River Ventures did not participate.

Under the master services contract, Centaur purchased multiple insurance policies from Travelers unit Travelers Property Casualty Co., including a protection and indemnity policy and an excess umbrella bumbershoot policy, which provides specialized umbrella coverage.

Devin Barrios, a Centaur employee working on the dock project, was seriously injured while moving equipment from a River Ventures vessel onto a work barge when he fell into the river and a portable generator struck his head.

River Ventures was found 100% liable for the injury after a bench trial, and Mr. Barrios was awarded $3.3 million.

River Ventures compromised and satisfied the judgment, then filed a third-party complaint against Travelers in U.S. District Court in New Orleans seeking coverage as an additional insured under the Travelers P&I and bumbershoot policies. River Ventures’ insurers, XL and Lloyd’s, also filed a complaint in the case seeking defense and indemnity payments.

The district court ruled in Travelers’ favor and was affirmed by a three-judge appeals court panel. The appellate ruling pointed to an employee exclusion in the P&I policy. The exclusion “unambiguously precludes coverage for all employee claims, regardless of whether the entity seeking coverage is the employer of the injured employee,” the decision said.

Attorneys in the case had no comment or did not respond to a request for comment.