Hudson, there was no contiguity problem because the platform where the injury occurred was located entirely at sea. See 555 F.3d at 428. 2 . Unsurprisingly, during oral argument to us, the answer candidly was given that rescinding Winchester would mean coverage would cease. There is no reason to criticize or call into question that answer. A property break could mean substantial cost savings which would be sensible, though the rule behind it would not be. CARL E. STEWART, Chief Judge, dissenting, joined by DENNIS and GRAVES, Circuit Judges: Over thirty years ago, our en banc court confronted the same issue we confront to day: how to interpret the geographic component of the situs test in the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA” or “the Act”) a Cir.1998) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Universal Fabricators, Inc. v. Smith, 878
holding that an injury occurring in a parking lot which was leased but not controlled by an employer was compensable because the employer instructed its employees to park in that lot holding that a fixed oil production platform was not a covered situs holding that injury in a parking lot did not occur on a covered situs holding that floating casino was not a covered situs holding injury at premises adjacent to the houston ship channel occurred on a covered situs