New admiralty case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Will review and comment later, but the opinion in the case of First American Bank v. First American Transportation Title Insurance Co., can be found here.
General Maritime Law
New Admiralty Case from Eleveth Circuit – _______
By Mark M. Murakami on
New admiralty case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Will review and comment later, but the opinion in the case of Misener Marine Construction, Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging Company can be found here.
New Admiralty Case from Ninth Circuit – Proshipline Inc. v. Aspen Infrastructures Ltd.
By Mark M. Murakami on
New admiralty case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Will review and comment later, but the opinion in the case of Proshipline Inc. v. Aspen Infrastructures Ltd., can be found here.
Who Owns Submerged Logs in a Riverbed? That Question Goes to a Jury
By Mark M. Murakami on
Who owns submerged logs in a riverbed? A new opinion from Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals says ask the jury.
These submerged logs are also called deadheads. When I was stationed in California on a Coast Guard patrol boat, we hit one near the Golden Gate bridge (mighta been a railroad tie). Significant emotional event.
Superferry – Decision from Delaware Bankruptcy Court
By Mark M. Murakami on
New 9th Circuit Admiralty Case – Requirements to Withstand Motion to Vacate Rule B Attachment
By Mark M. Murakami on
The Ninth Circuit just published a decision on Rule B attachment and plaintiff's burden to establish prima facie evidence of its contract claims to withstand a motion to vacate the attachment. Non-admiralty wonks can stop reading here.
In Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services Pte Ltd. v. MISC Berhad, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals…
White House Ocean Policy Task Force Releases Framework for Spatial Planning
By Mark M. Murakami on
News Flash – the Executive Office of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality just published the Ocean Policy Task Force’s Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.
The White House Press Release is here. The interim framework is available download here. Per the release:
The Interim Framework includes a number of important provisions that would significantly overhaul the Federal government’s approach to coastal and marine planning, including:
· A New Approach to How We Use and Protect the Ocean, Coast, and Great Lakes. The Interim Framework is designed to: decrease user conflicts; improve planning and regulatory efficiencies and decrease their associated costs and delays; and preserve critical ecosystem function and services. The Interim Framework describes how such plans would be developed and implemented, and provides timeframes and steps for phased implementation of the framework.
· Moves us Away From Sector-by-Sector and Statute-by-Statute Decision-Making. While many existing permitting processes include aspects of coordinated planning, most focus solely on a limited range of management tools and outcomes (e.g., oil and gas leases, fishery management plans, and marine protected areas). Comprehensive marine spatial spatial planning presents a more integrated, comprehensive, ecosystem-based, flexible, and proactive approach to planning and managing uses and activities.
· Brings Federal, State, and Tribal Partners Together in an Unprecedented Manner to Jointly Plan for the Future. The Interim Framework is not a top-down planning effort. Rather, it describes a new approach to Federal resource planning that is regionally based and developed cooperatively among Federal, State, tribal, and local authorities, and regional governance structures, through the establishment of nine regional planning bodies.
· Places Science-Based Information at the Heart of Decision-Making: Scientific data, information and knowledge, as well as relevant traditional knowledge, will be the underpinning of the regionally developed plans.
· Emphasizes Stakeholder and Public Participation: The planning process would be fully transparent and participatory – requiring frequent and robust stakeholder engagement throughout all steps of the process (i.e., development, adoption, implementation, adaptation and evaluation).
The Task Force’s Interim Framework is now available for a 60-day public review and comment period. After the close of the comment period on the Interim Framework, the Task Force will finalize its recommendations in both this report and the September 10, 2009 Interim Report, and provide a final report to the President in early 2010.
New LHWCA Case from NY Court – Barge is “Vessel” and State Law Claims Preempted
By Mark M. Murakami on
The New York Appellate Division recently issued a decision interpreting the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LWHCA), particularly 33 U.S.C. s. 905(b) and the preemptive effect of that act on state law claims. The decision is here and the case is entitled Lee v. Astoria Generating Company, L.P.
The facts are pretty straightforward. The defendant …
New LHCWA Coverage Case – Exclusions and Third Party Liability
By Mark M. Murakami on
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just issued a decision relating to longshoreman negligence claims made against third parties and the insurance coverage of those claims. The decision is unpublished but is available for download here.
In Bayou Steel Corp. v. Evanston Insurance Co., a stevedore was injured while unloading a barge in Illinois. He brought suit against the facility owner. The facility owner was denied coverage by some of its insurers and brought suit against them to compel coverage for the settlement of the underlying case.
The insurance policy at issue had an exclusion which stated:
This insurance does not apply to “Bodily Injury”, “Property Damage”, “Personal Injury”, or “Advertising Injury”, imposed upon you or assumed by you under contract with respect to claims made or suits brought against you or any indemnitee pursuant to the “United States Longshoremen & Harbor Workers Compensation Act” (Title 33 USCA, Sections 901 – 950) including any amendments or revisions thereto.
The issue on appeal was whether a stevedore’s claim, which admittedly was a claim recognized by the Longshoreman’ and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA) was “pursuant to” the LHWCA and thus fell under this exclusion. The court found that it was not because the statute explicitly did not extinguish a longshoreman’s negligence claims against third parties as it did for claims against employers.
The court noted that primary purpose behind the LHCWA was to create a compensation scheme for longshore and harbor workers who would not be covered under their state’s worker’s compensation statutes. The statute did not remove a plaintiff’s rights against third parties and while his injuries may be covered by the LHWCA, his claims against the third party were not “pursuant to” the LWHCA.
SCOTUS to Hear Maritime Bill of Lading Case
By Mark M. Murakami on
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Kawasaki case regarding "through" bills of lading and the interplay between the federal statutes governing cargo shipped by rail vs. cargo shipped by sea. My earlier post explaining the lower court decision is here. The Supreme Court order granting certiorari is here.
This case in…