On the Pulse… Maritime Law: Classical Foundations, Modern Implications
The Maritime Litigation Practice Group at Marshall Dennehey has a long history and a firmwide footprint that encompasses metropolitan New York (New York City, Westchester, Long Island and northern New Jersey), Florida (Tampa, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale and Jacksonville) and the Philadelphia metropolitan area (Philadelphia, southern New Jersey and Delaware). We have been recognized as a First Tier National Maritime Practice Group by U.S. News and World Report and Chambers USA.
We litigate matters stemming from all aspects of the marine industry including: vessel design/construction/repair/operations/allisions/collisions, marine construction, marine insurance, cargo shipping/trucking/warehousing and maritime personal injury. Our group also defends claims involving onboard vessel fires, containers overboard/damage, and loss or theft of goods during carriage via various modes of transportation, such as ocean vessels, inland truckers and rail carriers. Our attorneys readily rely upon highly specialized provisions of general maritime law and statutes including: Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), Carmack Amendment, Jones Act, Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (Longhsore Act) and Limitation of Liability Act (LOLA).
The terms “maritime” and “admiralty” are frequently used interchangeably. “Admiralty” refers to the body of law and procedures that govern matters related to the carriage of goods or passengers on the high seas and navigable inland waters. The term “maritime,” however, is more general.
Today’s practice of maritime law is said to have an ancient past that dates as far back as 900 B.C. Rich with history, our journey to uncover the secrets of modern day admiralty law takes us across the Atlantic to the Mediterranean Sea where a form of international law was born out of the longstanding customs of the sea. Fast forward to the late 14th Century, when the English courts established a system of separate Courts of Admiralty that eventually made the quick boat ride across the Atlantic during the time England colonized North America. These courts were given the jurisdiction to hear civil cases known as “a thing done upon the sea,” which continued in the U.S. until 1966, when the courts unified....but you already know all of this. Well, whatever its origin, it is very old indeed. Doctrines only available and recognizable to those practicing admiralty contain the true past of this ancient practice and can be found in several medieval maritime codes—or Davy Jones’ Locker.
In the New York metropolitan area, we are currently defending several marine construction bodily injury cases that involve multinational corporations, small family-owned businesses and various government entities. We are defending cases brought by dock builders and longshoremen. These types of cases fall under the purview of general maritime law, Longshore Act, Jones Act and New York State Labor Law. Our group has presented lectures on the interplay between New York Labor Law (specifically, the “scaffold law”), which is an absolute liability statute, and other traditional maritime remedies.
As an example of significant issues recently litigated by our practice group, our New York City office successfully litigated a claim made by a longshoreman, an employee of our client’s defunct subcontractor, seeking recovery in tort. Since the employer failed to procure and maintain Longshore coverage, we argued that our client was the employee’s statutory employer under 33 USC § 904(a). Although the Longshore Act generally allows claimants an election of remedies under Section 33 USC § 905(b), we relied upon Section 33 USC § 905(a) to argue that, under these very specific circumstances, the employee’s exclusive remedy was limited to Longshore benefits through a claim with the United States Department of Labor, not in a lawsuit.
In another matter handled by our New York City office, we successfully pursued a claim and petition in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of New York pursuant to LOLA, 46 USC § 30501, et seq. and Supplemental Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims in order to limit the liability of our client to the value of its barge, which was worth a fraction of the potential exposure. Our client owned a barge and was sued in New York State court when an individual on a jet-ski struck the barge. The potential recovery for the pain and suffering far exceeded the value of the barge. In our complaint and petition filed in federal court, we requested exoneration from or limitation of liability to the value of the barge pursuant to LOLA. The federal court granted our petition, finding that we established a prima facie case for the exoneration from or limitation of liability. Consequently, settlement was accomplished, based on a discounted value of the barge, prior to protracted litigation.
Our Mount Laurel, New Jersey office leveraged our skill in maritime law to obtain a dismissal by challenging the applicability of the discovery doctrine under the New Jersey statute of limitations to maritime claims. Suit arose from a boating accident that occurred on July 23, 2014, during a regatta. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was sixteen years old. The lawsuit commenced on December 6, 2017, more than three years after the accident. We moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it was barred by the three-year Uniform Statute of Limitations (46 U.S.C. § 30106 ) applicable to all maritime tort actions and was not subject to New Jersey’s infant tolling statute. The court agreed and granted our motion.
Our Philadelphia office is currently litigating a claim arising from pile driving during two separate marine construction and renovation projects commissioned by the U.S. Navy, which allegedly caused the pier in the vicinity of the former Philadelphia Naval Shipyard to collapse. The plaintiff is suing the companies that designed and constructed the two separate projects for the U.S. Navy on both sides of the dry dock it leases. By retaining experts with the needed expertise and experience in the industry, we are building a defense that will demonstrate that the sinkholes were caused by aging and lack of maintenance of the dry dock and that the pile driving occurred too far from the dry dock to have caused any vibrations capable of damaging the structure.
Finally, Our Tampa, Florida office is presently defending a significant salvage claim on behalf of the owner of a $1.5 million SeaRay. The plaintiff is asserting claims for contractual salvage, maritime lien and quantum meruit. The vessel went down at a dock and had to be dewatered and raised. According to the plaintiff, it came to the rescue of the vessel while it was in great peril, but our attorneys have developed evidence that the vessel was no longer in peril by the time the plaintiff began to act. Rather, it was sitting securely on the bottom in shallow water and tied to the dock. Moreover, we have established that the plaintiff boarded the vessel and began to act without authorization and that our client’s own efforts were far more instrumental in raising the vessel than were those of the plaintiff. We also successfully avoided the arrest of the vessel through the use of a LOU. The case remains in litigation.
Our Maritime Practice Group consists of dedicated and talented attorneys from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Florida. If you wish to contact the group, please write to Dan McDermott at dgmcdermott@mdwcg.com or Jay Hamad at jahamad@mdwcg.com.
*Dan, senior counsel and co-chair of the Maritime Litigation Practice Group, works in our Westchester, New York office. Dan can be reached at 914.977.7337 or dgmcdermott@mdwcg.com. Jay, a shareholder and co-chair of our Maritime Litigation Practice Group, works in our New York City office. Jay can be reached at 212.376.6424 or jahamad@mdwcg.com.
Defense Digest, Vol. 26, No. 3, October 2020 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2020 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.