Skip to main content

S.D. Florida Finds For Vessel Owner Against Necessaries Provider

In DELTA NOVEMBER, LLC. vs. BAKER, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D44a (S.D. Fla. August 22, 2011), a vessel owner entered into oral repair contract with a repairer and brought the action against the repairer alleging breach of maritime contract/warranty of workmanlike performance and breach of marine bailment, after vessel sank at its berth causing damages to its hull, machinery, appurtenances, and plaintiff's personal property. The repairer moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim.

The facts of the case are as follows. Plaintiff Delta November, LLC (“Plaintiff”) entered into an oral contract with Defendant Richard Baker (“Defendant”) to repair the starboard engine of Defendant's vessel, the M/Y CJ, a 33-foot Chris-Craft fly bridge sportfish vessel. At the time, the vessel was docked at its home dock, Worldwide Sportsman, and connected to shore-side power. The Defendant began the repairs at Worldwide Sportsman, which is located in Islamorada, Florida, wherein the Defendant then requested permission to move the vessel from Worldwide Sportsman to a berth behind Defendant's house in Tavernier, Florida. The Plaintiff granted permission for the Defendant to shift the vessel to his own house. However, instead of moving the vessel to his own house, the Defendant shifted the vessel to a berth located behind his neighbor's house. When the Defendant shifted the vessel, he failed to reconnect shore-side power. The Defendant also failed to monitor the vessel.

While docked at the Defendant's neighbor's house, the vessel began taking on water from the shaft's packing gland. The vessel's onboard bilge pumps kept up with the intruding water until the battery life died. If the Defendant had connected the vessel to shore-side power or if he had monitored the vessel, he could have saved the vessel. Instead, the vessel sank at its berth causing damage to its hull, machinery, appurtenances, and Plaintiff's personal property. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant damaged the packing gland by improperly removing the starboard engine and failed to confirm the packing gland's integrity after removing the starboard engine.

The court found that the complaint falls within admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1333 because the vessel was technically capable of being used in navigation and qualifies as a vessel where it was capable of floating when defendant took possession of it, and there is no allegation that its navigation system was damaged. The court also found that venue is proper where plaintiff has alleged that damage occurred in the district where complaint was filed. The court further found that venue is proper in southern district of Florida, because this is in personam admiralty action, and defendant was properly served in the district. 

Moreover, the court found that the claim for breach of warranty of workmanlike performance in an oral contract for repair should not be dismissed for failure to state claim. The court reasoned that there was no merit to the arguments that the complaint fails to state a claim because the plaintiff failed to plead that its principal or agent entered into oral contract with defendant and secondly, because oral contracts are unenforceable in admiralty. The court found that the claim for breach of marine bailment should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim where complaint, contrary to defendant's assertion, specifically alleges that defendant had exclusive possession of vessel and property to exclusion of the plaintiff.

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


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Maritime Law--Novel Rule B Attachment Rejected by Eleventh Circuit

In World Wide Supply OU v. Quail Cruises Ship Management , Case No. 14-14838 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order vacating an attachment of legal settlement funds.  At issue in this appeal was an attachment of property made pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule B. This appeal had a complicated background, involving multiple lawsuits in federal district courts, Florida state court, and a Spanish bankruptcy court. The common denominator of these suits was Quail Cruises Ship Management, from which multiple parties, including participants in the appeal, tried to collect money that they believed Quail owed them. This is not surprising, as there have been numerous cases against Quail due to a failed cruise venture they operated. The money at issue arose from the legal settlement of a dispute over the purchase of a cruise ship featured on ABC Television Network’s long-running series, The Love Boat. The ...
5 comments
Read more