Admiralty Jurisdiction
The following are digests and case links to
Circuit Court Admiralty Cases that have as an issue admiralty jurisdiction:
South
Port Marine v. Gulf Oil Ltd.
First Circuit Court of Appeals
December 7, 2000
Admiralty Jurisdiction: plaintiff's
floating docks that were damaged by an oil spill were extensions of the
land and hence a tort that causes damage to them does not occur wholly
on navigable waters and therefore constitutes an action at law, rather
than in admiralty; OPA 90/Jury Trial: although the Oil Pollution
Act (OPA) does not create a statutory right to a jury trial, plaintiff
has a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial of its claims under the Act
since they are analogous to causes of action at common law, rather than
causes of action in admiralty; Punitive Damages: punitive damages
are not available under OPA for marine pollution claims, nor are they available
under the general maritime law in view of the enactment of OPA, which has
supplanted the existing maritime law of punitive damages in cases of marine
pollution.
Hartford
Fire Insurance Co. v. Orient Overseas Containers Lines (UK)
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
October 27, 2000
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ("COGSA"):
COGSA
does not apply as a matter of law after goods have been discharged from
the vessel, thus COGSA did not apply as a matter of law to the inland portion
of an intermodal carriage from Wisconsin to the Netherlands; COGSA could
apply as a matter of contract between the parties, but the bill of lading,
although potentially ambiguous, should be construed as applying by contract
the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods
by Road ("CMR") to plaintiff's claim arising from the alleged theft of
cargo in Belgium en route to the Netherlands; Admiralty Jurisdiction:
a "mixed" maritime/non-maritime contract is subject to admiralty
jurisdiction only where (1) the claim arises from a breach of maritime
obligations that are severable from the non-maritime obligations of the
contract or (2) the land-based portion of the contract is "merely incidental"
to the sea-based portion; since neither of these exceptions is applicable
here, plaintiff's cargo damage claim is subject to the court's diversity
jurisdiction.
LeBlanc
v. Cleveland
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
December 9, 1999
Admiralty Jurisdiction: navigability
for admiralty jurisdiction purposes requires that the body of water support
commercial activity, thus there is no admiralty jurisdiction in a case
arising from an injury that occurred on a body of water that was only used
for non-commercial purposes.
Calhoun
v. Yamaha Motor Co.
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
June 23, 2000
Admiralty Jurisdiction: the court had
admiralty jurisdiction over a collision between a jet ski and an anchored
vessel in Puerto Rican territorial waters, thus federal choice of law principles
apply; Choice of Law: application of those principles results in
the choice of Pennsylvania law to determine compensatory damages and Puerto
Rican law to determine punitive damages; federal maritime law principles,
however, apply in determining the liability of the defendant in this admiralty
action for the death of a non-seaman brought pursuant to a state wrongful
death/survival statute.
Fernandez
v. Haynie
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
March 25, 2002
Marine Insurance/Admiralty Jurisdiction:
A fishing vessel owner's contract claim against its broker for failure
to place his insurance with an "A" rated domestic insurer was within the
court's admiralty jurisdiction.
Dahlen
v. Gulf Crews, Inc.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
February 4, 2002
Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act/Charter
Parties: The standard of care owed a longshore worker by a vessel owner
as articulated in Scindia and
Howlett does not explicitly
apply to time charterers. But, as no other case articulating the duty owed
by a time charterer in such a situation could be found, the district court
did not abuse its discretion by issuing a jury instruction that applied
Scindia
to the time charterer. Indemnity: The vessel owner did not owe the
time charterer an indemnity under the charter's indemnity and insurance
clause since the injury to Plaintiff did not arise out of or relate to
the performance of the vessel during the charter. Admiralty Jurisdiction/Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA"): The district court erred in
applying the Admiralty Extension Act, 46 U.S.C. § 740, and maritime
law since Plaintiff's alleged injury was not caused by the defective appurtenance
of a ship on navigable waters and, furthermore, the OCSLA specifically
regards the artificial islands on the OCS as areas where state law should
apply unless there is a conflict with federal law.
Weaver
v. Hollywood Casino-Aurora
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
June 21, 2001
Admiralty Jurisdiction/Jones Act: a
party seeking to invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction over a personal
injury claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1333(1) and pursuant to the the Jones
Act must satisfy conditions of location on navigable waters and of connection
with maritime activity; since the record indicated that the portion of
the river where the casino boat was located may not have been navigable
in fact, the case was remanded so that the district court could determine
whether subject matter jurisdiction existed.
Ventura
Packers v. F/V Jeanine Kathleen
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
September 11, 2002
Maritime Liens/Admiralty Jurisdiction:
The Federal Maritime Lien Act, 46 U.S.C. § 31342, establishes statutory
elements, which if met, invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal
courts. The district court therefore erred in dismissing plaintiff's necessaries
lien claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which dismissal was
based on a finding that the contract between plaintiff and the vessel interests
was not wholly maritime and that its maritime portion could not be severed
from its non-maritime portion without prejudice to the vessels. Although
this finding was correct, the Federal Maritime Lien Act provides an independent
basis for subject matter jurisdiction where the plaintiff, as here, has
provided necessaries to a vessel.
Herman
Family Revocable Trust v. The Vessel Teddy Bear
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
June 13, 2001
Admiralty Jurisdiction: since there
was no admiralty jurisdiction over this dispute concerning the aborted
contract to sell a yacht, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
and had no power to adjudicate either the in rem admiralty claims
or the supplemental state law claims.
La
Reunion Francaise v. Barnes
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
May 3, 2001
Marine Insurance/Admiralty Jurisdiction:
a federal court has admiralty jurisdiction over a marine insurance policy
that, besides covering damage to a boat while on the water, requires the
policyholder to store his boat on land for half the year, insures against
theft while on land, and limits navigation of the boat to inland waters
of California.
Morris
v. Princess Cruises
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
January 10, 2001
Procedure/Admiralty Jurisdiction: removal
of the case from state to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) was proper since the only non-diverse
defendant had been fraudulently joined; plaintiff's subsequent joinder
of the non-diverse Insurers thereupon defeated the court's diversity jurisdiction,
but because the district court would have had original admiralty jurisdiction
over this action had plaintiff filed suit in federal court in the first
instance, her failure to move for remand upon joining the non-diverse defendants
waived any possible objection to removal jurisdiction; Maritime Tort:
plaintiff's tort claims arising from the admittedly harrowing experience
suffered in Bombay after her husband had been medically evacuated from
the cruise vessel were properly dismissed since plaintiff failed to adduce
any evidence suggesting that any possible breach of duty on the part of
Princess Cruises caused harm to plaintiff or her husband.
Commercial
Union Insurance v. Sea Harvest Seafood Co.
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
June 11, 2001
Marine Insurance/Admiralty Jurisdiction:
a claim under an open marine cargo insurance policy covering a shipment
of frozen shrimp from Bangkok, Thailand to Philadelphia via California
and Chicago was within the court's admiralty jurisdiction although the
loss did occur during the Chicago to Philadelphia overland portion of the
shipment; the cargo owner's claim of loss under the policy was properly
denied by the district court under admiralty law since the loss resulted
from a failure to attach a generator to the refrigerated container, which
was not a loss due to "derangement or breakdown of the refrigerating machinery,"
as the term is used in marine insurance policies.
Bunge
Co. v. Freeport Marine Repair
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
January 30, 2001
Collisions/Casualties: although Hull
No. 40 was under construction when it broke from its moorings during a
hurricane and damaged a grain-loading facility along the waterway, it was
a vessel for purposes of admiralty tort jurisdiction and the Louisiana
Rule, which stipulates that a moving vessel that strikes a stationary object
is presumed to be at fault; Admiralty Jurisdiction: since
the allision occurred in navigable waters due to the imperfect mooring
of a nearly complete vessel, the incident bore a substantial relationship
to traditional maritime activity and was properly within admiralty tort
jurisdiction; Government Regulation: the grain-loading facility
was not in violation of a 33 U.S.C. 403, which requires a permit for structures
that partially obstruct a waterway, since the facility was grandfathered
under government regulations and did not interfere with navigation; thus
the Pennsylvania Rule, which bars a plaintiff in violation of a
federal statute from recovering damages unless that plaintiff can prove
that its own violation could not have caused the loss, is not applicable. |