Recent Updates
March 08, 2010
COURT DENIES ICICLE SEAFOOD?S MOVE TO REDUCE $1.3 MILLION DOLLAR PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARD
March 03, 2010
ALASKA RANGER DOCUMENTARY - MAYDAY, BERING SEA TO AIR ON DISCOVERY CHANNEL
March 02, 2010
Three Crewmen Die When Cruise Ship Crashes While Docking In Egypt
February 22, 2010
ALASKA CRAB BOAT NORTHWESTERN DOCKS AT SEATTLE FISHERMANS TERMINAL
January 29, 2010
ICICLE SEAFOODS ORDERED TO PAY INJURED SEAMAN ATTORNEY FEES FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE TRIAL
January 28, 2010
FOUR CREWMEN RESCUED FROM MISSING TUGBOAT
January 25, 2010
ALASKA FACTORY TRAWLER FLEET BEGINS 2010 FISHING SEASON
January 20, 2010
EXXON OIL TANKER LOSES POWER IN PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND
January 20, 2010
MARATHON OIL DECKHAND DIES AFTER FALL OVERBOARD
January 20, 2010
ALASKA FISHING VESSEL ORDERED TO RETURN TO PORT FOR SAFETY VIOLATIONS
Legal Cases and Concerns
ICICLE SEAFOODS ORDERED TO PAY INJURED SEAMAN ATTORNEY FEES FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE TRIAL
Posted by: James Beard
January 29, 2010
Icicle Seafoods has been ordered to pay an injured seaman $ 387,558 in an attorney fee award plus $40,500 in case expenses arising out of a November 16, 2009 jury trial in King County. Dana Clausen, a crewman working for Icicle Seafoods, was previously awarded 1.3 million dollars in punitive damages for Icicle's willful and wanton failure to pay maintenance and cure benefits.
Washington Allows Jury Trial Demand By Employers in State Court Jones Act Cases
Posted by: James M. Beard
January 07, 2010
In Jones Act injury cases, the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that an employer has the right to demand a trial by jury. Previous to the decision in Endicott v. Icicle Seafoods, most Washington State Superior Court Judges ruled that only the injured seaman had the right to demand or not demand a jury trial in State Court.
King County Jury Awards $1.3 Million In Punitive Damages Against Icicle Seafoods
Posted by: James Beard
November 20, 2009
A King County Washington jury has awarded $1.5 million to a 55 year old Louisiana fisherman who suffered injuries while working aboard a fish processing vessel owned by Icicle Seafoods. The jury found Icicle Seafoods’ conduct in failing to pay the injured seaman, Dana Clausen, his full entitlement to maintenance and cure benefits to be willful and callous and assessed $1,300,000 of the award in punitive damages. Jim Jacobsen of Beard Stacey & Jacobsen, together with Larry Curtis, represented Clausen.
Fishing Company Sanctioned for Improper Ex-parte Contacts With Injured Seamans Treating Doctors
Posted by: James M. Beard
October 08, 2009
A Court Order has been issued for sanctions against United States Seafoods for having improper ex-parte communications with an injured seaman's treating doctor. An insurance adjuster for the Alaska fishing company contacted the injured seaman's treating doctor to seek an opinion relating to whether or not the seaman was at maximum medical cure. The seaman's attorney had previously revoked all authorizations given to the insurance adjuster to obtain medical information about the seaman. The Court had also previously ordered the company to pay back maintenance. The Court sanctioned United States Seafoods finding that the ex-parte contacts to be "highly improper" and clearly without "legal basis." An Order was also issued prohibiting United States Seafoods from engaging in future ex-parte contact with the injured seaman's treating health care providers, even if they have information relevant to issues relating to maintenance and cure. The King County Superior Court Case is Holloway v. Alaska Beauty LLC and United States Seafoods.
LAST REMAINING ALASKA RANGER CASES TO PROCEED IN STATE COURT
Posted by: James M. Beard
September 17, 2009
Following the sinking of the ALASKA RANGER, the vessel owners, Fishing Company of Alaska, filed a petition for limitation of liability in United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. By filing the limitation of liability action, the vessel owners were able to stay the pending State Court suits of the crewmen who survived the sinking. Twenty six crewman filed claims for physical and psychological injuries in the Federal limitation of liability action. All but two of those claims have been resolved with the assistance of a Federal Mediator. The claims of crewman Juan Barrios and fishing observer Gwen Rains remained pending in Federal Court until September 11, 2009 when, by stipulation of the parties, the stay of proceedings was lifted as to the Rains' and Barrios' actions. The amount of damages to be awarded in the Barrios case may now be decided by jury trial in Washington State Superior Court.
Beard Stacey & Jacobsen represented 13 of the surviving crewmen from the ALASKA RANGER case and also represented the family of deceased crewman Byron Carrillo. The amounts of those crewmen's settlements remain confidential.
Dismissal of Case For Forum Non Conveniens
Posted by: James M. Beard
August 30, 2009
When a maritime accident occurs in one location but the involved parties are from other jurisdictions, the Court sometimes must decide where is the most "convenient" jurisdiction for the lawsuit. One such recent example of a Court's determination of the most convenient jurisdiction arose following the death of a Bahamian national who was severely injured and ultimately died as the result of a collision with another vessel. The Bahamian national, Mr. Pinder, was in a skiff belonging to a Bahamian ship's skiff fleet. Mr. Pinder's skiff was allegedly struck by the M/V MALVI navigated by Mr. Moscetti in territorial waters of the Bahamas. Mr. Moscetti is a Florida resident and the M/V MALVI is registered in Florida and owned by a Florida corporation. Ms. Pinder filed suit in the Southern District of Florida for a wrongful death action under the Death on the High Seas Act ("DOSHA").
The defendants' filed a Motion To Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens stating the Bahamian Courts have jurisdiction over this case. The basis for the defendants' argument was that the plaintiff resides in the Bahamas as did her late husband; the accident happened in Bahamian waters; a majority of witnesses to the case reside in the Bahamas; and the Bahamian authorities investigated the accident. District Court Judge Adalberto Jordan agreed with the defendants and dismissed the case without prejudice.
The Florida Court's analysis is as follows, "District Courts have the discretion to dismiss a case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens where the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice weigh in favor of trying the action in an alternative forum," provided the plaintiff can file her claim in the alternative forum without undue prejudice or inconvenience.
In determining whether the alternative forum was sufficient, the Florida Court stated that it needed to determine whether United States Law applied to the case. In the case at hand, the U.S. law did not mandate a U.S. Court. Ms. Pinder brought her claims under DOSHA which does not have a mandatory venue provision. Additionally, before DOSHA can be applied to a claim, negligence of the defendant(s) needs to be determined pursuant to the tort law of the jurisdiction with the most contact with the event or occurrence. In this case, as noted above, the Bahamas is the forum with the most contact and, therefore, Bahamian law would be the applicable tort law.
Having determined this issue, the Court then needed to look to three factors to determine the appropriate forum; 1) is there an adequate alternative forum; 2) do the private and public factors weigh in favor of the alternative forum; and 3) can the plaintiff file her claim in the alternative forum without undue prejudice and inconvenience.
The Florida Court states that an adequate forum is one that provides some sort of relief, even if the relief is not perfect. The Florida Court noted that Bahamian Law is derived from English Common law and, therefore, recognizes theories of negligence. Additionally, Bahamian Law has a remedy similar to Florida's wrongful death action; the Accidents Act and Survival of Action Act.
The Florida Court then turned to public and private factors. The Florida Court recognized that it had no jurisdiction over the potential Bahamian witnesses and, therefore, would not have the ability to intervene should an issue arise regarding making witnesses available in the Florida Court. Additionally, all documentary evidence necessary to prove or disprove plaintiffs' claims are located in the Bahamas, such as official documentation regarding the maritime conditions at the time of the collision. Furthermore, because under DOSHA the Court has to also consider the "degree of negligence of the decedent and reduce the recovery accordingly," any documents related to decedent's maritime record would be located in the Bahamas as well. Based on the above, the Florida Court believed that the private factors were clear that the Bahamas was the appropriate forum.
In terms of public factors, the decedent was a Bahamian national and was killed in Bahamian waters by a foreign national. The Bahamas has an interest in seeing that the necessary steps are taken to ensure that the appropriate damages are awarded to promote safety to its residents and tourists through its laws.
Finally, the Florida Court needed to ensure that plaintiff's claims were not prejudiced by a dismissal for forum non conveniens. The Florida Court set forth several conditions for the defendants to ensure plaintiff's claims were preserved such as the defendants must agreed to service of process and jurisdiction in the Bahamas; the defendants must waive any statute of limitations for up to one year from the date of the order to allow plaintiff to refile her claims; the defendants must make available to plaintiff all evidence and witnesses in their custody or control, that is relevant to the action in questions whether located in the U.S. or not.
The Florida Court dismissed Ms. Pinder's case without prejudice and further ordered that if the defendants failed to comply with any conditions set forth above or the Bahamian Court declines to accept jurisdiction, Ms. Pinder's case would be reinstated in the Florida Court effective the date of its original filing.
SUPREME COURT RULES PUNITIVE DAMAGES AVAILABLE IN MAINTENANCE AND CURE CASES
Posted by: James M. Beard
June 26, 2009
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled today that punitive damages may be awarded to Jones Act Seamen when their employer willfully and wantonly withholds payment of maintenance and cure benefits. The decision affirms the availability of punitive damages under the General Maritime Law and rejected arguments that the Court's prior decision in Miles v. Apex had prohibited such damages.
SUPREME COURT REDUCES DAMAGES IN EXXON VALDEZ SPILL CASE; SUGGESTS 1:1 DAMAGES RATIO FOR MARITIME CASES
Posted by: Joseph S. Stacey
June 25, 2008
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday to reduce punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case from an original jury award of $5 billion to about $500 million.
DEFINITION OF "SEAMAN" AGAIN DEBATED IN POTENTIAL SUPREME COURT CASE
Posted by: Joseph S. Stacey
June 19, 2007
In a previous post, I wrote about Isenhour v. Harvey's Casino, which found riverboat casino employees to be Jones Act seamen. The Supreme Court is now considering whether to hear another case involving casino boat workers and maritime law, and this case is slightly different.
JONES ACT PROTECTION EXTENDED TO RIVERBOAT CASINO EMPLOYEES
Posted by: Joseph S. Stacey
June 13, 2007
On Tuesday, June 12, a court ruling in the case Isenhour v. Harvey's Casino found that riverboat casino employees are Jones Act seamen, even though their jobs of dealing cards and running slot machines aren't traditional maritime jobs.
COURT OF APPEALS REVISITS MARITIME PREEMPTION
Posted by: Joseph S. Stacey
June 12, 2007
The way maritime cases are handled in Washington State courts was revisited recently in the case Lam v. Global Medical Systems.
