“Thrown a Lifeline”: Fifth Circuit Holds Marine Life-Rafts Are “Equipment” under the Texas Dealer Act

1. Introduction

In Fire Protection Service, Inc. v. Survitec Survival Products, Inc., No. 24-20405 (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a Southern District of Texas judgment and declared that high-capacity marine life-rafts fall within the definition of “Equipment” in the Texas Fair Practices of Equipment Manufacturers, Distributors, Wholesalers, and Dealers Act (the “Dealer Act”). This ruling revives the dealer’s statutory claims, clarifies the expansive reach of the Act, and for the first time squarely holds that:

“Mining” in the Act encompasses offshore oil and gas exploration and production.
“Industrial activities” includes large-scale maritime industries such as commercial fishing and global shipping.
“In connection with” requires only a tangential relationship between the item and the covered activity.

The decision arises from Survitec’s termination of Fire Protection Service’s non-exclusive oral dealership, without cause and without repurchasing unsold inventory. The district court found the Act inapplicable because life-rafts supposedly are not “Equipment.” On appeal, Judges Stewart, Dennis (author), and Haynes unanimously disagreed, issuing an opinion rich in statutory interpretation and Texas jurisprudence.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Applying de novo review to the district court’s Rule 52(c) dismissal, the Fifth Circuit concluded:

Life-rafts plainly fit the ordinary meaning of “equipment.”
They are present in at least four enumerated commercial contexts—construction, maintenance, mining, and industrial activities—because federal regulations and the SOLAS treaty require their installation on offshore platforms and commercial vessels.
The phrase “in connection with” in § 57.002(7)(A) imposes only a minimal, tangential nexus, easily satisfied where life-rafts are mandated safety apparatus for those industries.
No statutory text, precedent, or legislative history establishes a terrestrial limitation or conflict with the Texas Boat Act.

Consequently, the panel reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Texas Co. v. Daugherty, 176 S.W. 717 (Tex. 1915) – Recognized oil and gas as “minerals,” laying groundwork for treating oil extraction as a form of “mining.”
Luse v. Boatman, 217 S.W. 1096 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1919, writ ref’d) – Expanded “mining” to include boring into the ground for oil and gas; relied upon to equate offshore drilling with mining.
Southland Royalty Co. v. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp., 378 S.W.2d 50 (Tex. 1964) – Affirmed that an oil or gas well is a “mine.”
Hegar v. Gulf Copper Mfg. Corp., 601 S.W.3d 668 (Tex. 2020) – Key Texas Supreme Court authority holding that “in connection with” imports no more than a tangential link unless cabined by text.
McLane Champions, LLC v. Houston Baseball Partners, LLC, 671 S.W.3d 907 (Tex. 2023) and related cases – Recent line of precedents confirming the breadth of “in connection with.”
Lake Charles Diesel, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 328 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 2003) – Earlier Fifth Circuit decision emphasizing legislative intent to level bargaining power under equipment-dealer statutes; cited for purposive reading.
Aleman v. Texas Medical Board, 573 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. 2019) – Distinguished; its limiting construction of “connected with” hinged on additional statutory language absent here.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Two-Step Inquiry

Proper Context? The court adopted ordinary-meaning dictionary definitions. “Mining” covers extraction of “minerals,” expressly including petroleum and natural gas. “Industrial activities” reach large-scale, capital-intensive ventures—commercial fishing, shipping, and drilling fit comfortably.
Connection Requirement: The phrase “used for, or in connection with” tolerates minimal linkage. Because federal and international law legally compel installing life-rafts on vessels and platforms performing the enumerated activities, the nexus is undeniable.

3.2.2 Rejection of Narrow Constructions

The district court’s “reasonable nexus” requirement, adopted from the intermediate–appellate Titan Transportation decision, was discarded as inconsistent with five Texas Supreme Court cases interpreting the identical phrase. Likewise, Survitec’s attempt to carve out a maritime exception collapsed: nothing in the Act’s text or structure suggests such a boundary, and selective legislative history supplied by a lobbyist carried no interpretive weight.

3.2.3 Canonical Techniques Employed

Plain-meaning rule – Primary driver; dictionaries and prior case law used as interpretive aids.
Inclusio unius / expressio unius – Because the Act expressly excludes only motor vehicles, trailers, and ATVs, courts may not imply further exclusions.
Redundancy canon – Acknowledged that overlap among categories does not render them meaningless; legislatures often draft redundantly to ensure coverage.
Erie guess methodology – In absence of on-point Texas Supreme Court precedent regarding the Dealer Act, the Fifth Circuit predicted how that court would rule, leaning heavily on long-standing mineral jurisprudence.

3.3 Anticipated Impact

The implications are substantial for equipment suppliers, dealers, and manufacturers operating in Texas:

Maritime & Offshore Reach. The decision extends Dealer Act protections to a vast array of maritime safety and operational gear—EPIRBs, immersion suits, firefighting systems, winches, anchoring machinery, etc.—whenever sold through Texas dealerships.
Oil-and-Gas Supply Chain. By declaring offshore drilling “mining,” suppliers of sub-sea robotics, blow-out preventers, riser systems, and similar equipment may invoke repurchase rights and termination safeguards.
Broader Statutory Interpretations. Courts are signaled to interpret other undefined industry terms (e.g., “utility activities”) expansively unless statutes unmistakably restrict them.
Contract Drafting & Risk Allocation. Manufacturers likely will re-evaluate distribution arrangements, include forum-selection clauses, or consider structuring around the Act by formal franchising models. Dealers, conversely, possess stronger leverage to negotiate buy-back, notice, and termination provisions.
Litigation Posture. Pending or future cases involving aviation safety, wind-farm installations, or robotics may rely on the tangential-nexus reading to qualify under the Act.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Dealer Act (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 57) – A Texas statute protecting local dealers from sudden, unjustified terminations by powerful suppliers. When applicable, suppliers must show “good cause” to cancel and must repurchase unsold inventory at prevailing prices.
“Used … in connection with” – Legal phrase meaning the item need only have some relationship—even indirect—to the listed activities. Think of a safety helmet required on a construction site: the helmet itself does not build anything, but its presence is essential.
“Mining” – Not limited to digging coal or metals. Under Texas law, it broadly covers extracting any minerals, including oil and natural gas, whether on land or offshore.
Rule 52(c) – Federal rule allowing a judge, after hearing plaintiff’s evidence in a bench trial, to enter judgment for defendant if plaintiff has shown no right to relief. Appellate courts review the legal conclusions de novo.
Erie Guess – When federal courts applying state law face an unsettled question, they predict how the state’s highest court would decide, using intermediate decisions and analogous precedents.

5. Conclusion

Fire Protection v. Survitec cements a significant expansion of statutory protection for Texas dealers. The Fifth Circuit’s methodical application of ordinary-meaning dictionaries, coupled with century-old mineral-rights jurisprudence, reinforces a pro-dealer, anti-termination policy embedded in the Dealer Act and underscores that “industrial” and “mining” activities are not artificially cabined by geography or traditional imagery. Importantly, the court’s reaffirmation that “in connection with” demands only a tangential nexus lowers the evidentiary burden for dealers to invoke the Act’s shield.

The ruling’s ripple effect will likely reach far beyond life-rafts, influencing contractual relationships in oil-field services, maritime logistics, renewable-energy infrastructure, and any sector supplying critical apparatus to large-scale operations. Manufacturers and distributors would be well-advised to revisit their distribution strategies, and practitioners should expect an uptick in Dealer Act litigation as stakeholders test this newly clarified breadth. In short, the Fifth Circuit has thrown Texas dealers—or perhaps more aptly, their counsel—an invaluable lifeline.