Miami Shipping Law

On June 24, 2014, I had the pleasure of speaking at the Newport Charter Show on the topic titled "The Climate on Crewing has Changed; The Maritime Labor Convention 2006 Enters Into Force". Photograph of Newport Boat Show taken from newportboatshow.com   I have been writing continuously on the entry into force of the Maritime Labor Convention, commonly referred to as the “MLC”. On August 20, 2013, the MLC entered into force and institutes minimum standards of living conditions, fair employment practices and other employment protection for vessel crew on a worldwide basis. While many yacht owners and operators are under the impression that the MLC does not affect them, the MLC in fact directly impacts the operations of every vessel engaged in charter service. The presentation covered: Significant changes in the manager-employee climate as it relates to full and part time crew The issues of ratification by the various flag states; who this will affect and what the...

Yachting Magazine and other similar sources report that the National Transportation Safety Board has taken over the investigation of a capsizing that occurred May 18, 2014 in Anacortes, Washington, during the launch of a brand-new 90-foot motoryacht. The capsized yacht was reportedly constructed by New World Yacht Builders doing business as Northern Marine. Northern Marine was founded in 1995 and in 2009, former Northern Marine employee Andy McDonald founded New World Yacht Builders, which leased the Northern Marine name along with equipment and other assets and has been doing business as Northern Marine. Vessel beginning to capsize. Photo taken from Yachting Magazine The U.S. Coast Guard completed an initial investigation into the incident before handing the matter over to the NTSB, according to both agencies. The NTSB investigation is expected to take several months. The NTSB are investigating this incident because it is considered a major marine casualty. Major ...

In   Miele v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London , Case No. 13-14166 (11 th Cir. Mar. 17, 2014), the Eleventh Circuit in another unpublished decision has found that exclusion for: " The cost of repairs or replacing any part of Your Boat by reason of wear and tear, gradual deterioration, osmosis, wet or dry rot, corrosion, weathering, marring, scratching, denting, vermin, pets or marine life, or electrolytic or galvanic action" is not ambiguous. In Miele , an insured’s 32-foot vessel sank while docked because water entered through what a surveyor concluded was a “degraded and rotten” air conditioning hose, which cause was not disputed.  Underwriters denied coverage under the insured’s yacht insurance policy based upon the exclusion. In the insured’s suit against the insurers, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment to the insurers.   On appeal, the insured argued that the exclusion ...

Under Florida law, the duty to defend determination is made by looking only at the terms within the  insurance policy and the allegations within the complaint.  Generally, extrinsic evidence may not be considered.  However, in the case of Composite Structures, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co ., Case No. 12-15866 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2014) (unpublished), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (applying Florida state law) recognized an important exception to this general rule. When an insurer’s coverage denial is based on factual issues that ordinarily would not be alleged in the complaint, the insurer may consider extrinsic evidence outside of the complaint. The underlying lawsuit was brought by two seamen who sustained carbon monoxide poisoning while aboard a boat.  The seamen sued the insured boat manufacturer for negligence and strict liability, and the insured tendered its defense to its insurer. The insurer disclaim...

Today, I had the pleasure of being part of a Maritime Panel at my alma mater , St. Thomas University School of Law. Joining me on the Panel were other St. Thomas alumni, Christine M. Dimitriou of Mase Lara Eversole and Kerry A. Nierenberg of Lipcon, Marguiles, Alsina and Winkleman. Photo of Carnival Triumph The topics discussed were Class Actions against cruise lines, the operational realities of a Costa Concordia tragedy occurring in the U.S., exclusions in marine insurance policies, unseaworthiness and the current status of punitive damages for unseaworthiness and other maritime claims. However the topic which garnered the most lively discussion was the current state of the law regarding ship owner liability for negligence of ships' doctors and medical staff. Under Mascolo v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A ., 726 F. Supp. 1285 (S.D. Fla. 1989), a ship operator has no vicarious liability for negligence of a ship's doctor on the ground that it has no control over the physic...

This week is an active one for the Florida Supreme Court. The first case up for discussion is State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Curran , SC12-157 (Fla. Mar. 13, 2014). After the Plaintiff was rear-ended by an underinsured motorist (UM), Plaintiff requested her $100,000 UM policy limits from State Farm. Plaintiff indicated that her damages were estimated to be $3.5 million because she suffered from reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome. State Farm responded that Plaintiff must schedule a compulsory medical examination (CME) pursuant to the terms of the policy. Plaintiff refused to attend a CME and instead filed suit against State Farm. The trial court entered judgment against State Farm for the UM policy limits. The court of appeal affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff breached the contract when she failed to attend the CME; but (2) State Farm must plead and prove prejudice to avoid liability based on noncompliance with the CME clause, and State Farm failed to meet its burde...

On October 9, I blogged on the case of  McBride v. Estis Well Service , No. 12-30714 (5th Cir. Oct. 2, 2013),    where  a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that seamen may recover punitive damages for their employer's willful and wanton breach of the general maritime law duty to provide a seaworthy vessel.  The court found that previous decisions, to the extent that they denied recovery of punitive damages for maritime liability sounding in unseaworthiness, read too much into prior Supreme Court and appellate court rulings on related, but different, issues. You can find my discussion on that case here=>   McBride Discussion . At that time I noted that this was a potentially a major decision, likely to be appealed and certainly to generate discussion. Now, a majority of the circuit judges have voted in favor of granting the defendant's petition for rehearing en banc. You can find the en banc order here=...