Cruise Line Has No Right To Demand Arbitration Without Signing Arbitration Agreement

In CAPPELLO v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D317a (S.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2012) (J. Altonaga), a crewmember and his wife filed a lawsuit in state court against Carnival Corporation (“Carnival”) alleging breach of warranty of seaworthiness, Jones Act negligence, failure to provide maintenance and cure, failure to provide prompt, proper and adequate maintenance and cure, common law negligence and loss of consortium. Carnival filed a Notice of Removal of the lawsuit attempting to compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims against Carnival. The Plaintiffs in turn filed a Motion to Remand the case back to state court.

The District Court found that it lacked federal question jurisdiction over the seaman's action under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Convention because Convention does not apply. The court found that Carnival had not met the jurisdictional prerequisites of the Convention by presenting a signed arbitration agreement between parties and, instead, produced only an “Officer's Agreement” to which it is not a signatory. The District Court further held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not allow Carnival, as non-signatory to the document it relies on, to compel arbitration where it makes no showing of how the Plaintiffs' claims implicate terms of Officer's Agreement . The court reasoned that to extent Carnival contends the seaman was equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration because underlying incident giving rise to his claims arose while he was employed, and the seaman was employed by means of Officer's Agreement, Eleventh Circuit precedent forecloses this line of reasoning.

The court further found that there was no existential basis for federal jurisdiction under admiralty law, and Carnival alleged no other basis for federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the court held that because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, remand was appropriate and it is therefore inappropriate to rule on substantive merits of claim and granted the Plaintiffs leave to address appropriateness of attorney's fees and costs for improper removal.

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

Comments

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

Maritime Law--U.S. Crewmember Required to Arbitrate Claims Applying Norwegian Law

In Alberts v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd ., No. 15-14775 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a U.S. citizen, working aboard a Royal Caribbean cruise ship is required to arbitrate his claims against Royal Caribbean. Plaintiff, a United States citizen, worked as the lead trumpeter on a passenger Royal Caribbean cruise ship. The ship is a Bahamian flagged vessel with a home port in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Royal Caribbean, the operator of the vessel, is a Liberian corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. After plaintiff became ill while working for Royal Caribbean, he filed suit alleging unseaworthiness, negligence, negligence under the Jones Act, maintenance and cure, and seaman’s wages and penalties. Royal Caribbean moved to compel arbitration, and the district court granted the motion. This appeal presented an issue of first impression: Whether a seaman’s work in international waters on a cruise ship

Maritime Law--Jury Hits Royal Caribbean Cruises With $20.3M Verdict for Officer's Hand Injury

In Spearman v. Royal Caribbean Cruises , Case No. 2011-023730-CA-01, a Miami-Dade County, Florida jury has awarded $20.3 million to a former crewmember of Royal Caribbean Cruises, whose hand was crushed while coming to the aid of a fellow worker during an emergency test in 2008. After a three-week trial, the jury found the Miami-based cruise company negligent in operating an unseaworthy ship and 100 percent liable for the injuries suffered by Lisa Spearman, who was working an officer on Royal Caribbean’s Voyager of the Seas . Spearman sued the company in 2011, three years after her right hand was caught in a watertight power door during a fire-safety drill. According to her lawyers, Spearman was trying to prevent the door from closing on the ship’s nurse when her hand was pulled into a recess pocket of the sliding door and crushed. The nurse allegedly breached the company’s safety protocol when she stumbled through the door, prompting the response from Spearman. Accordin

Miami Shipping Law

Search This Blog