Skip to main content

Seaman's Contract Doesn't Always Require Arbitration

In THOMAS HINES v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D225a (S.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2012), a United States crew member who was injured on board cruise ship sued his employer cruise line, alleging claims of Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, failure to provide maintenance and cure, failure to treat, and seeking wages and penalties. The seaman sued in Florida state court and Carnival removed the case to federal court.

Judge Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida found that the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the case because the fourth jurisdictional requirement under 9 U.S.C. section 202 of a commercial relationship that has some reasonable relationship with one or more foreign states is not met where employee's Seafarer's Agreement contains no reference to performance abroad or in any foreign country, choice of law clause was also neutral, the plaintiff has alleged that he has not performed any employment duties on foreign soil, terms of agreement and work performed is largely associated with United States, employment agreements in effect at time of crew member's personal injuries were executed within United States, and subject agreements require payment to plaintiff in United States dollars. The Court further found that the country corresponding with flagged vessel is not persuasive in determining a relationship to a foreign state. The Court reasoned that Section 202 instructs courts to disregard foreign corporate status of a U.S. based company in deciding whether the relationship is international. In addition, the Court found that activity in international waters does not satisfy a relationship with one or more foreign states and because the fourth jurisdictional requirement of Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards was not met, case was not removable and had to be remanded to state court.

This case, along with Matabang v. Carnival Corp., 630 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (S.D. Fla. 2009), stands for the proposition that seaman's employment agreements do not create a “relationship involv[ing] property located abroad, or [having] some other reasonable relation with one or more foreign states”, Matabang, 630 F. Supp. 2d at 1367, when the performance contract between the parties contains no reference to performance abroad or in any foreign state apart from the arbitration clause. 

If you are interested in receiving a full copy of this decision, please feel free to contact me at miamipandi@comcast.net or mov@chaloslaw.com.  

Comments

  1. UnknownFebruary 21, 2014 at 5:29 AM

    Miami Maritime Law is a resource website and group of experts containing Florida’s best Lawyers, Maritime and Marine Science Experts.These advocates serve as a guide to the complex sea of issues that arise from; maritime personal injuries, boating accidents, injuries and crimes occurring on cruise ships and commercial vessels.
    International Commercial Arbitration

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ReThink + ReUse Center "It's How We Roll" Fun Raiser -- Bowling Night -- October 16, 2014

As many of my readers may be aware, I am the Chair of the ReThink + ReUse Center, a non-for-profit educational and environmental Center in Miami educating children into rethinking reuseable materials for learning through play. The ReThink and ReUse Center’s Quality Play is Learning Program provides a series of educational and participatory workshops based on the philosophies of Reggio Emilia and Harvard's Project Zero Visible Thinking. The Children’s Trust is the major funder of this program, but the Center is required to continually fundraise for the balance its annual budget.   The Center is having a fun event you are invited to--the ReThink + Reuse Center’s “It’s How We Roll” bowling event on October 16, 2014 at Splitsville Luxury Lanes from 18:00 to 21:30 hours. My firm, Comcast and Waste Management are major sponsors for this event, but we could use a few more sponsors. If you are interested in sponsoring the event, please let me know by reaching me at mov@chalos...
6 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl...
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.”    At the ...
5 comments
Read more