120 (1972), we confronted remarkably similar facts and a similarly expansive indemnification agreement. A crew member aboard a utility tender was nearly crushed to death when the operator of a Chevron platform crane negligently allowed a welding machine to swing against the vessel’s railing. We held that the vessel owner’s promise to indemnify did not contemplate injuries caused by the negligent acts of a platform crane operator during unloading. “As broad as those terms are to comprehend injuries caused by the operation of the vessel in a practical sense, they do not comprehend an occurrence in which the vessel’s sole contribution is to be there as the carrier from which the cargo is being removed.” Id. at 583. Accord Smith v. Tenneco Oil Co., 803 F.2d 1386, 1388-89 (5th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); Hobbs v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 632
holding that the parties purchase agreement did not require a showing of prejudice for plaintiff to assert that defendant waived its claim for indemnification holding that the indemnification contract between an owner of train tracks and an owner and operator of a train clearly and unequivocally required indemnification for the track owners negligence given that the contract explicitly stated that the indemnification provisions shall apply regardless of considerations of fault or negligence holding that indemnification for any claim that arises out of or is incident to performance of a time charter agreement does not apply to liability for a platform crane operators negligence in lowering a worker to the vessels deck holding that indemnification  without regard to  the negligence of any party clearly and unequivocally provided bay drilling with indemnification for its own negligence holding that where there has been no settlement or judgment of liability regarding the underlying claim any imposition of liability is not so immediate as to warrant declaratory relief on the issue of indemnification