Skip to main content

Maritime Law-Busy Week With New Decisions on Punies, Time Bars and Penalty Wages

This week bring us 3 new decisions which touch on the following issues in this order: punitive damages for unseaworthy vessels, time bars in salvage actions and penalty wages.

The first case is McBride v. Estis Well Service LLC, No. 13-30714 (5th Cir. Oct. 2, 2013). This case arose out of an accident aboard ESTIS RIG 23, a barge supporting a truck-mounted drilling rig. The principal issue was whether seamen could recover punitive damages for their employer's willful and wanton breach of the general maritime law duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. Like the doctrines of maintenance and cure, unseaworthiness was established as a general maritime law right before the passage of the Jones Act. Therefore, the Court reasoned that as punitive damages were available under the general maritime law and the Jones Act did not address unseaworthiness or limit its remedies, the court accordingly reversed and remanded, concluding that punitive damages remained available as a remedy for the general maritime law claim of unseaworthiness.

The second case is Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. P'ship, No. 11-3723/12-3949 (6th Cir. Oct. 2, 2013). The facts in this case are interesting. The Nineteenth-Century steamship S/S CENTRAL AMERICA sank in the Atlantic Ocean in 1857, taking down with her tons of gold. The wreckage was discovered more than 130 years later by explorers led by Thompson. Thompson is a fugitive from the law. Those who assisted Thompson in locating the wreck signed non-disclosure agreements in exchange for a percentage of the net recovery, but none had received payment. In defending the suit brought by these plaintiffs, Thompson's business entities asserted a two-year statute of limitations for actions in salvage and three counterclaims. The District Court rejected the time-bar argument and granted summary judgment against all counterclaims. While an interlocutory appeal was pending, the District Court granted prejudgment attachment and an injunction against one of the entities and Thompson, forbidding them from divesting certain assets. The Sixth Circuit agreed that the time bar does not apply, affirmed summary judgment against the counterclaims  for failure to raise an issue of fact material to the disposition of the case and upheld the injunction.

The issue of interest in this case, despite the history, the parties involved and the legal procedural maneuvers, is the issue related to time bar. Thompson's business entities cited the 2-year statute of limitations in salvage (46 U.S.C. section 80701(c)) to suggest that the plaintiffs were time barred in their quest for remuneration. However, the Sixth Circuit found that as there was a contract between Thompson and the plaintiffs, this was not a pure salvage situation but rather, a contract salvage situation, to which the statute does not apply. This case is good reading for anyone wanting a good  history read on the S/S CENTRAL AMERICA or a good summary on contract versus pure salvage.

The third case is closer to home--Wallace v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 12-15204 (11th Cir. Oct. 1, 2013). Here, plaintiff seafarers who worked aboard cruise ships operated by NCL filed suit under the Seaman's Wage Act, 46 U.S.C. section 10313 et seq, claiming that NCL did not pay them their full wages because their compensation did not take into account the amounts they were required to pay their helpers to complete their work on embarkation days. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the District Court made findings of fact which were supported by the record that there was no evidence of willful, arbitrary or other misconduct on the part of NCL in failing to pay wages. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court.

If you are interested in receiving copies of any of these decisions or wish to reach me, you may do so by contacting me at mov@chaloslaw.com.


Comments

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...

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--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 ...