Maritime

Summary Judgment Summarily Dismissed by Third Circuit in Vehicle Accident Case

Published on: April 23, 2012 | By Berniard Law Firm

A summary judgment is rendered when a trial court decides that there are no genuine issues of material fact that need to be determined. “Manifestly erroneous” is the high standard under which summary judgments are reversed on appeal. Summary judgments are cheaper and less time consuming than full blown trials; they are a means toward the end of judicial expediency, a goal that becomes increasingly important to our judicial system over time. Despite the importance of this procedural device, many cases do not call for summary judgment. Sometimes trial courts grant full or partial summary judgments in error and are reversed. That is what occurred in the case of Jagneux v. Frohn, which you can read here.

The defendants in this case convinced the trial court that no issues of fact existed that required litigating. Their legal journey was not over though due to the plaintiff’s appeal. The court of appeals applied the standard promulgated by the Louisiana Supreme Court. This Louisiana Supreme Court’s standard initially places the burden of proof on the party that is moving for a summary judgment. The moving party must prove that one or more elements of the adverse party’s claim or defense lacks any factual support on the record so far. The opposing party is then granted an opportunity to prove that there have been facts alleged that support that party’s position. At the time of summary judgment the record is sparse so a granting of summary judgment represents a finding by the court that no facts supporting a particular party’s, in this case the plaintiff’s, position.

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision in this case because it found that the issue of whether Mrs. Kling, a defendant in this case, was the driver of the white SUV at the time that it, at least partially, caused the accident at issue in this case. Because there was conflicting evidence about where Mrs. Kling was and whether or not she was actually in control of the car at the time of the accident, summary judgment was not the right choice in this case. The trial court is not to weigh the merits of the case when addressing summary judgment. Summary judgment is only appropriate in cases where no potentially meritorious case is presented by one of the parties.

Happy Holidays from the Berniard Law Firm

Published on: April 8, 2012 | By Berniard Law Firm

On behalf of the Berniard Law Firm, we hope that all of our friends and followers have had a relaxing and restful holiday. Posting will resume on Tuesday

A Happy Holidays to All Friends of the Berniard Law Firm

Published on: December 25, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

The Berniard Law Firm would like to wish everyone a Happy Holiday.

Regular posting will resume in 2012! Have a happy, and SAFE, holiday season!

Insurance Coverage and its Limits – How Protected Are You?

Published on: September 10, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

U.S. Court of Appeals affirms that maritime insurance policy covering collision on the Mississippi River included defense costs in coverage limits. In a case of insurance contract interpretation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that defense costs were included in the policy limits set by a maritime insurance policy. The court admitted that this interpretation erodes policy limits.

Gabarick v. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Nos. 09-30549, 09-30809 (5th Cir. 8/10/11) arose out of a collision on the Mississippi River. Laurin Maritime and related parties owned the ocean-going tanker M/V Tintomara. In the early hours of July 23, 2008, the ship collided with a barge carrying heavy fuel oil. The impact split the barge in half, and heavy oil spilled into the river. American Commercial Lines, LLC (barge owner) owned the tug, barge, and cargo, but D.R.D. Towing Co., LLC (towing company) provided the crew that ran the tug pushing the barge. It’s the towing company’s insurance policy that raised issues of policy interpretation.

A protection and indemnity (or P&I) policy issued by Indemnity Insurance Company of North America (insurer) covered the towing company. The policy is a standard maritime policy, except for modifications the parties made to the SP-23 Form. The policy provided a single occurrence limit of liability of $1 million, with a $15,000 deductible. The towing company and the barge owner demanded that the insurer indemnify and defend them. Not knowing which of the numerous parties rightfully should receive the insurance proceeds, the insurer deposited $985,000 into the registry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for the court to make the decision. That court held that the insurer’s deposit for the interpleader action was proper and that the funds would reimburse defense costs. The barge owner and Laurin Maritime appealed.

The appellate court explained that Louisiana law forms the basis for the court’s independent review of the District Court’s interpretation of the insurance policy. Even before it entered into this analysis, the court cautioned that marine insurance commentators agree that defense costs are typically included within such insurance policy limits. The P&I insurer usually has no duty to defend: indemnification is the basis for coverage. Louisiana law agrees. Legal expenses incurred in defending a liability covered by an insurance policy are treated as part of the overall claim. Payment of legal expenses falls within the policy limits. Because the barge owner is a sophisticated commercial entity, it bore the burden that this policy should be interpreted differently.

The collision triggered coverage under the policy’s collision and towers liability and protection and indemnity coverage. Although the policy was mostly standard, a “manuscript provision” (modification) added a collision and towers liability clause. The standard language for the relevant coverage stated, “Liability hereunder in respect to any one accident or occurrence is limited to the amount hereby insured.” The court found no ambiguity.

The barge owner argued that the policy was ambiguous. It pointed to the modification language that the insurer “will also pay the costs which the Insured shall thereby incur or be compelled to pay.” The barge owner argued that Exxon Corporation v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 129 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 1997) had interpreted the clause to exclude defense costs from the policy cap. This argument did not work for three reasons. The cited case involved personal injury, not collision, placing the “also pay” language in the P&I policy, unlike the towing company’s policy. Second, the claims mentioned by the barge owner are excluded from the collision coverage. “[A]ny recovery must come under the standard P&I section of the policy,” the court explained. Finally, any ambiguity from the clause, were it applicable, would not extend to the relevant coverage sections of the standard policy language because the modification was a separate contract entered into by sophisticated parties.

The court summarized that “the policy is clear that defense costs were intended to be included within the policy limits. This P&I policy is unambiguously written against the backdrop of traditional principles of maritime law that defense costs erode P&I limits of liability.”

The barge owner also appealed the District Court’s denial of insurance proceeds. The appellate court explained, “The district court did not permanently deny funds to the barge owner but rather stated, ‘payment to [the barge owner] at this time would not be equitable.'” (Alterations in original.) Therefore, the District Court’s decision was not a final judgment and could not be appealed.

Coverage limits and defense from an insurer are crucial issues in evaluating a claim when you have been harmed. Insurance policies differ between consumer and business and by industry. This case demonstrates the specificity of insurance coverage. A lawyer independent of your insurance company can help you understand your policy, its coverage limits, and the extent of an insurer’s duty to defend.

Interpretation of Insurance Contracts: The Meaning of ‘Subcontractor’

Published on: September 3, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

Insurance companies do not always make recovery of benefits easy when a worker is injured on the job. The insurance recovery process can be overwhelming, and may be complicated by the often necessary instigation of litigation. Many different provisions governing recovery are involved in insurance contracts. Insurance negotiations can be complicated by differing interpretations of these policy provisions, often standing as the core principles upon which the sides dispute in a case. The interpretation of the language of the contract by the court plays a pivotal role in deciding who is liable for the costs associated with on the job injury. In fact, benefits can be delayed in disputes over the meaning of a single term contained in an insurance contract.

In Bayou Steel Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., two insurance companies, New York Marine and General Insurance Company (NYMAGIC) and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (NUFIC-PA), disagreed over which company was liable for an on the job injury. Both companies provided insurance coverage to the Bayou Steel Corporation when Ryan Campbell, an employee of Bayou Steel’s stevedoring contractor, was injured unloading cargo. A dispute arose as to whether Campbell’s employer was a contractor or a subcontractor of Bayou Steel under NYMAGIC’s “policy that excludes coverage of Bayou’s liability for bodily injury incurred by ‘[e]mployees of … [Bayou’s] sub-contractors’ but does not exclude coverage of such injuries incurred by employees of Bayou’s contractors.” If the court found that Campbell was a subcontractor, NUFIC-PA would be held liable for his injuries, but if they found he was a contractor, NYMAGIC would be liable. The lower court held that Campbell’s employer was a subcontractor of Bayou Steel, and NYMAGIC was not liable for his injury under their insurance agreement. An appeal by NUFIC-PA followed.

On appeal, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans reversed the lower court’s decision. Based on principles of contract interpretation, the court held that Campbell’s employer was a contractor and not a subcontractor, thus NYMAGIC was liable for the payment of benefits to the injured. When a term in a contract is not specifically defined it is to be given its “generally prevailing meaning.” A terms generally prevailing meaning is determined by the court in examining a myriad of different sources including statues and prior court opinions, as well as various dictionaries. The lower court determined that a subcontractor was “simply some person hired to do part of another person’s work.” The appellate court held that Campbell’s employer could not be defined as a subcontractor because it was the party paying for the work and not the party actually performing the work. The decision of the lower court was reversed, and liability was ultimately determined, based entirely on this judicial interpretation of a single word.

Knowledge of the interpretation of insurance contract provisions can be pivotally important when negotiating an insurance settlement or in litigation for recovery of damages. If you or a loved one has a claim that could involve negotiating with an insurance company, then you need an experienced law firm to help you navigate those negotiations and to represent you in court should it be necessary. The Berniard Law Firm has experience negotiating with insurance providers.

The Fifth Circuit Explores a Maritime Dilemma in Barge Wreck

Published on: June 5, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

General maritime law holds that there can be no recovery for economic loss absent physical damage to or an invasion of a proprietary interest. The issue in many cases is whether or not any actual damage has occurred. In a recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the court explores this very issue in order to determine whether the plaintiffs damages warranted recovery. Throughout the Mississippi River, refineries and various businesses operate, utilizing the river’s shipping channels to transport their goods and perform many of their business operations. However, if the river is blocked in any way, it hinders their production and hence, their ability to maintain scheduling and perform necessary tasks. The mere absence of access does not constitute physical damage, yet, it does constitute an injury to one’s proprietary interests. Thus, the court has to make the determination of whether or not the injured party was injured and in what way to make a ruling on any potential recovery.

The facts of the recent maritime case involve a plaintiff business who owns and operates a hydroelectric station on a privately owned channel from the Mississippi River. Near the plaintiffs property is the Mississippi River Flood Control Structures at Old River in Concordia Parish, Louisiana. The River Flood Control Station is made up of the intake channel which diverts water from the Mississippi River, a dam structure which contains the turbines, generators, and other machinery of the station, and the outflow channel which directs water from the dam to the Old River/red River/Atchafalaya River. The plaintiff’s owned the station and the surrounding property necessary for their business operations. On December 24, 2007 two tows operated by the defendant and a barge company collided on the Mississippi River approximately 2.5 miles upriver from the plaintiff’s intake channel. As a result of the collision, several barges broke free from the tow then drifted downriver into the intake channel of the plaintiff’s facility and became grounded on the east bank of the intake channel, lodging against the station. The physical damage may have resulted from one of the barges that had become lodged on the station, this physical presence obstructed the intake channel, which provided water to the turbine and generators of the plaintiff’s electric power generation facility. The presence of the barge forced the plaintiff to reduce flow of water in the intake channel into the turbine and thus, its output of electricity to prevent the barge from sinking and to allow safe access to the barge for its removal. After six hours without any progress, the plaintiff’s had to shut down six turbines and reduce the remaining two to minimum power because of the decreased flow of water directed to the turbines from the intake channel. In order to remedy the situation, a barge crane and a vessel were sent to enter the intake channel, offload the grounded barge’s cargo, tow the damaged barge away from the station where a larger barge crane could unload the barge’s cargo, so it could safely re-enter the Mississippi River. The entire process took almost ten hours to complete.

The plaintiff facility filed suit in a Louisiana state court seeking damages for the value of the electrical power it was unable to generate due to the physical presence and intrusion of the grounded barge. However, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that no physical damage was evidenced and thus, under general maritime law, no recovery was available. Upon appeal, the fifth circuit explored the general maritime law in order to determine whether or not the summary judgment holding was correct. The appropriate legal rule to analyze the initial claim was to apply the Robins rule. The rule of Robins carries numerous legal meanings, including: refusing recovery for negligent interference with “contractual rights,” as denying recovery for economic loss if that loss resulted from physical damage to the property of another. The rule’s goal was to exclude indirect economic repercussions, which can be widespread and open ended. Here, the defendants argued that the plaintiff suffered no physical harm. However, the appellate court agreed with the plaintiff’s, the mere presence of the barge in the intake channel, which was a functional part of the plaintiff’s facility, interfered with the unobstructed flow of water in the channel, impairing the ability of the facility to operate as designed. Thus, the harm qualifies as damage to its proprietary interests as general maritime law indicates warrants recovery. After all, the plaintiff’s had to actually turn off half of their business facilities machinery and reduce the power to the remaining two in order to allow the defendants the safe and speedy removal of their grounded barge. Without the plaintiff’s mitigating acts (turning off the majority of their machinery) they would have ru the risk of incurring physical damage their entire hydroelectric station.

The Fifth Circuit held that based on the fact that the defendants barge entered the plaintiff’s privately owned hydroelectric facility, causing the plaintiff’s physical damage to their property and invasion of their proprietary interest, they reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing its claims on summary judgment and remanded. this case illustrates that maritime law is a difficult and often complicated legal journey. In order to effectively protect your legal rights one should hire a competent and effective attorney.