New admiralty case from the Fifth Circuit Court ofAppeals.  Will review and comment later,but the opinion in the case of Combo Mar., Inc. v. U.S. United Bulk Terminal, LLC, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17644 and can be found here.

New maritime contract case from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The issue is contribution and indemnity provisions relating to the repair of vessels.  The case is In re Fitzgerald Marine & Repair, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17000 and the original opinion can be found here.

Facts:  a marine repair company has a standing service agreement to repair a company’s tugboats and barges.  One of its crews is called upon to aid a tugboat that was in danger of sinking.  The tugboat eventually sinks.  During the aid mission, an employee of the repair company was injured.  He brought a claim against his employer and vessel owner for his injuries.  The tug owner cross-claimed against the repair company for contribution and indemnity, citing the contract and common law.  The injured worker’s claims were settled. 

Analysis:

The maritime contract provided:

[Repairer] shall provide [Vessel Owner] the following services upon request:

(a) Repair of barges, towboats, and other vessels and any appurtenances, tackle, gear, or appliances of such vessels; and

(b) Such other services as may be agreed upon by the parties.

All of such services shall be performed at the [Vessel Owner’s] facility in the vicinity of Columbus, Kentucky, including barge fleets operated in conjunction with the [Vessel Owner’s] operation on both sides of the river. [Vessel Owner] shall give [Repairer] at least 24 hours’ advance notice of its
service requirements.

The service agreement indemnity provision provided:

[Repairer] shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend [Vessel Owner] and its affiliated companies . . . and its and their employees, agents, and vessels, from and against (a) any and all claims, liabilities, penalties, and expenses based upon or arising in connection with injury to or death of the employees or agents of [Repairer] . . . , regardless of any negligence on the part of the party to be indemnified or the unseaworthiness of any vessel owned, chartered, operated, or controlled by such party, and (b) any other claims, liabilities, penalties, and expenses arising in connection with [Repairer]’s operations unless caused by the sole negligence of [Vessel Owner] or its affiliates, or its or their employees, agents, or other contractors or subcontractors.

The court found that this indemnity provision was intended to protect Vessel Owner from the claims of Repairer’s employees.  So, if the feckless attempt to save the tugboat was performed pursuant to the service agreement, then Repairer had to indemnify Vessel Owner.  Rejecting claims that it was a good samaritan or that the attempted repair was not a repair that was envisioned by the service agreement, the court found that the attempted rescue of the tugboat was indeed covered by the service agreement, thereby triggering the indemnity obligations of Repairer.

New admiralty case from the Eleventh Circuit Court ofAppeals.  Will review and comment later,but the opinion in the case of Uralde v. United States, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17283 and can be found here.

New admiralty case from the Fifth Circuit Courtof Appeals.  Will review and commentlater, but the opinion in the case of Casas v. Joiner,  2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 16827 and can befound here.

New admiralty case from the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals.  Will review and comment later,but the opinion in the case ofCassirer v. Kingdom of Spain, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 16707 and can be found here.

New Maintenance & Cure case from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  The case is Delaware River & Bay Authority v. Jan D. Kopacz, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 21260, and the original opinion can be found here.

Facts:  a commuter seaman (ate and slept ashore) was injured at work and brought suit for maintenance and…

Found this new-er marine insurance case from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (ok, I’m cleaning out the in-tray).  The case name is Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC v. Durham Auctions Inc., and the official opinion can be found here.

At issue in this case is a choice of law provision of a marine insurance policy.…