06 Dec 2012: Man Ferrostaal, Inc. v M/V Akili, U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty – cargo damage – whether vessel "carrier" within meaning of Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 USC 30701 or whether a common law remedy – whether waiver of in rem liability attempted by free-in-free-out provision in the voyage charterparty enforceable – whether ship owner and ship manager liable as bailee in personam for cargo damage

27 Nov 2012: Hornbeck Offshore Services, et al v Salazar, et al, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty – compliance with injunction – where moratorium had been issued on permits for new off-shore wells drilled using floating rigs – where injunction against enforcing moratorium – whether Department of Interior violated injunction – whether actions amount to civil contempt

02 Oct 2012: Garanti Finansal Kiralama A.S. v Aqua Marine and Trading Inc., U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty – whether shipowner contractually bound to arbitrate a bunker fuel agreement with bunker fuel supply company – whether shipowner party to bunker fuel contract – where bareboat charter or leasing contract not registered

14 Sep 2012: John Crane, Inc. v. Hardick, Virginia Supreme Court
Admiralty – general maritime law – personal injury – mesothelioma – whether Jones Act permits recovery by deceased's wife and estate for pre-death pain and suffering under general maritime law

14 Sep 2012: Omega Protein, Inc. v Forrest, Virginia Supreme Court
Admiralty – personal injury – back injury sustained aboard commercial fishing vessel – causation

29 Aug 2012: Reino De Espana v Bureau of Shipping, U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty – liability for tanker oil spill – whether classification society owed Spain a duty in tort in connection with the inspection of tanker – whether insufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material facts whether defendants recklessly breached any potential duty

14 Aug 2012: Beech v Hercules Drilling Co., LLC, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty – vicarious liability under Jones Act – whether shipowner vicariously liable for employee shooting another employee – course and scope of employment – whether seaman's wife able to recover from husband's employer for wrongful death

25 July 2012: In Re: Am. Capital, U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
Bankruptcy – outstanding personal injury asbestos claims against ship manufacturer – whether bankruptcy court has authority to determine at the disclosure statement state that a Chapter 11 plan is unconfirmable without first holding a confirmation hearing

20 July 2012: Messier v Bouchard Transp., U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty – doctrine of maintenance and cure – where seaman had lymphoma during maritime service – where no symptoms presented during time of service – whether employee of tugboat operator entitled to maintenance and cure regardless of when symptoms became apparent

3 July 2012: State of DE v U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs
Planning and environment – whether Environmental Assessment in favour of deepening Delaware River was arbitrary in light of inter alia supplementary EIS and oil spill

20 Jun 2012: United States v Pena, U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty – MARPOL prosecution – whether US has standing to prosecute a nominated surveyor (conducting a MARPOL survey on behalf of a foreign nation) for infringement of MARPOL treaty while aboard a foreign vessel in US port

20 Jun 2012: Wajnstat v Oceania Cruises, Inc., U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty – interlocutory appeal – negligence – contractual limitation of liability – whether jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeal on limitation of liability clause – whether amounted to determination of "rights and liabilities"

23 May 2012: United States v Dire U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
Criminal Law – appeal against convictions and sentences – Offence of piracy – where defendants mistakenly attacked a Navy vessel – whether defendants committed a robbery at sea where they boarded the Navy vessel as captives.

16 Mar 2012: Aggarao, Jr. v Mol Ship Management. Co. U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
ADMIRALTY – personal injury – negligence under general maritime law and Jones Act – unseaworthiness – maintenance and cure – breach of contract – contravention of Seaman's Wage Act – whether Arbitration Clause requiring arbitration in Philippines enforceable.

16 Mar 2012: Markel Am. Ins. Co. v Diaz-Santiago U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty – maritime insurance – where vessel damaged when seized as part of drug enforcement action

15 Mar 2012: Clausen v Icicle Seafoods, Inc., Washington Supreme Court
Admiralty – maintenance and cure – whether a judge or jury should award attorney fees – where jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages for wilful failing to pay maintenance and cure

08 Mar 2012: Otal Investments, Ltd. v M/V. Clary, U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty – collision – allocation of liability – limitation of Liability – Whether ship owners entitled to limit liability

22 Feb 2012: Eckstein Marine Service L.L.C., et al. v Jackson, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty – personal injury caused by unseaworthiness – where ship owner/operator's action for liability to be limited in accordance with Limitation of Shipowners' Liability Act was dismissed by district court in favour of plaintiff's motion to dismiss – whether motion to dismiss was not a jurisdictional issue – whether notice was given to ship owner/operator of plaintiff's motion

03 Jan 2012: Manderson v Chet Morrison Contractors, Inc. U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty – maintenance and cure – general maritime law – Jones Act—costs – whether the district court correctly applied the collateral-source rule in determining the amount of cure awarded for personal injury – whether the ship owner's denial of providing maintenance and cure was arbitrary and capricious, therefore entitling the plaintiff to an award of costs for attorney's fees

2011

15 Dec 2011: MLC Fishing, Inc v Velez, US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty and Maritime Law - Injury Law – Appeal from District Court - whether accident occurred "on or over navigable waters" for the purposes of the Exoneration and Limitation of Liability Act, 46 USC. - Whether the Act provides an independent jurisdictional basis for petitions that arise from incidents not occurring "on or over navigable waters" - Appeal dismissed.

14 Dec 2011: F.C. Wheat Maritime Corp. v United States, US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty and Maritime Law – Allision (collision between a moving vessel and a stationary object) – Vessel declared a constructive total loss – Consideration of argument that due to the "unique use of vessel" the correct measure of damages was the vessel's actual replacement cost and not its (lower) market value - Argument not made out on the facts of the case - Market value found to apply – Appeal dismissed.

13 Dec 2011: India Steamship Co. Ltd v Kobil Petroleum Ltd, US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty and Maritime Law - Commercial Law and International Trade – Appeal from District Court – Whether a District Court order vacating the attachment of a cheque issued by the District Court clerk made payable to the defendant should be overturned - Cheque attached pursuant to Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Appeal dismissed.

21 Oct 2011: 5K Logistics, Inc. v Daily Exp., Inc., 659 F.3d 331
Admiralty and Maritime Law – Appeal from District Court – Cargo damage claim by shipper - Claim not filed within time or at all – Meaning and effect of the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14706 considered – Claims time barred – judgment of District Court reversed

20 Oct 2011: Chem One, Ltd v M/V Rickmers Genoa; Atlantic Coast Yacht Sales, Inc v ESM Group Inc.; St Paul Travelers v M/V Rickmers Genoa, US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
Maritime Law – Collision between the M/V Rickmers Genoa and the M/V Sun Cross - Conjoined multi-party actions arising from the collision - Motion to dismiss appeals from two interlocutory orders for summary judgment entered in the ESM Defendant's favour in the District Court – Whether the appeals were premature and not authorised by the maritime interlocutory appeal statute, 28 USC. 1292(a)(3) – Whether appeals should be consolidated on the basis that it was both "efficient and equitable" for the disposition of the appeals - Motion denied in part.

23 Sep 2011: Doe v Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd, US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty and Maritime Law - Motion to compel arbitration – Appeal from District Court - Turns on own facts – Five claims brought for alleged violations under the Jones Act, 46 USC. 30104 or as general maritime law claims under the Seaman's Wage Act, 46 USC. 10313 as well as five tort claims – Whether claims fell within scope of the arbitration clause in the crew agreement such that the Defendant could compel arbitration – District Court's judgment denying motion to compel arbitration affirmed in relation to the torts claims but reversed in relation to the other five claims.

21 Sep 2011: Odyssey Marine Exploration v The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, et al., US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty – Appeal from District Court - Writ in Rem issued in relation to the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes, a Spanish vessel that sank in 1804, in international waters – Motion to dismiss filed by Spain – Whether the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that the res was immune from judicial arrest under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 USC. – Cargo part of the res for sovereign immunity purposes – Finding that District Court did not err in ordering release of custody of res and cargo to Spain.

13 Sep 2011: State of Michigan, et al. v US Army Corps of Engineers, et al, US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Maritime Law, Environmental Law, Government and Administrative Law – Appeal from District Court – Preliminary Injunction sought to stop invasive carp from migrating from the Mississippi River to the Great Lakes – Consideration of likelihood of harm such as to constitute a public nuisance and causing irreparable harm – Consideration of measures put in place to prevent harm – Preliminary Judgment of District Court affirmed – Turns on own facts.

29 Aug 2011: Lindo v NCL (Bahamas) Ltd, US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty and Maritime Law, Arbitration and Mediation – Appeal against District Court order compelling arbitration of Jones Act negligence claim pursuant to 46 USC. 30104 – Application of United Nations Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) and governing Supreme Court and Circuit Court precedent – Order compelling arbitration affirmed.

19 Aug 2011: City of Riviera v Lozman, US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Admiralty and Maritime Law – Appeal from District Court – In rem proceeding against a vessel involving the maritime tort of trespass – Preliminary issue - Whether the Defendant was a "vessel" and therefore subject to federal admiralty jurisdiction - Findings by District Court that Court had admiralty jurisdiction, that vessel was liable for trespass and subject to a maritime lien affirmed.

10 Aug 2011: Gabarick v Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., 2011 WL 3480964

09 Aug 2011: Gabarick v Laurin Maritime (America), Inc., 2011 WL 3447436

28 Jul 2011: One Beacon Ins. Co. v Crowley Marine Services, Inc., 2011 WL 3195292

27 Jul 2011: Reeve v Ocean Ships, Inc., 2011 WL 3165765

22 Jul 2011: Conner v Alfa Laval, Inc., 2011 WL 3101810

21 Jul 2011: Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Ins. Co., Ltd. v M/V SOPHIE RICKMERS, 2011 WL 2970821

22 Jun 2011: Breaux v St. Charles Gaming Co., Inc., 2011 WL 2462836

21 Jun 2011: Grab v Traylor Bros., Inc., 2011 WL 2471298

21 Jun 2011: Zeghibe v ConocoPhillips Co., 2011 WL 2489736

10 May 2011: Smolnikar v Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 2011 WL 2066768

6 May 2011: In re Complaint Of Vulcan Materials Co. v Massiah, 2011 WL 1718896

21 Apr 2011: Tobar v US, 639 F.3d 1191

18 Apr 2011: Dominion Bulk Chartering Ltd. v America Metals Trading LLP, 2011 WL 1458785

15 Apr 2011: Energy XXI, GoM, LLC v New Tech Engineering, L.P., 2011 WL 1458638

01 Apr 2011: Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v Lloyds TSB General Leasing (No. 20) Ltd., 2011 WL 1313310

31 Mar 2011: Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, 636 F.3d 1338

18 Mar 2011: MS Tabea Schiffahrtsgesellschaft MBH & Co. KG v Board of Com'rs of Port of New Orleans, 636 F.3d 161

15 Mar 2011: St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v Board of Com'rs of Port of New Orleans, 2011 WL 890934

15 Mar 2011: St. Joe Co. v Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., 2011 WL 915300

14 Mar 2011: American Commercial Lines LLC v Water Quality Ins. Syndicate, 2011 WL 887916

09 Mar 2011: Fareast Commodities Resources Ltd. v SGS SA, 2011 WL 1044274

07 Mar 2011: Luera v M/V Alberta, 635 F.3d 181

01 Mar 2011: Short v Marinas USA Ltd. Partnership, 942 N.E.2d 197

22 Feb 2011: Pires v Frota Oceanica E Amazonica, S.A., 81 A.D.3d 912

22 Feb 2011: Heller v Frota Oceanica E Amazonica, S.A., 920 N.Y.S.2d 86

17 Feb 2011: Bonin v Ryan Marine Services, Inc., 2011 WL 573520

16 Feb 2011: Kaloe Shipping Co. Ltd. v Goltens Service Co., Inc., 2011 WL 677372

10 Feb 2011: Barna Conshipping, S.L. v 2,000 Metric Tons, More or Less, of Abandoned Steel, 410 Fed.Appx. 716

10 Feb 2011: Niche Oilfield Services, LLC v Carter, 2011 WL 480598

07 Feb 2011: Milestone Shipping, S.A. v Estech Trading LLC, 2011 WL 497487

02 Feb 2011: Baltimore Line Handling Co. v Brophy, 2011 WL 1026099

13 Jan 2011: In re Complaint of Town of Chatham, 2011 WL 110351

2010

30 Dec 2010: Gabarick v Laurin Maritime (America), Inc., 406 Fed.Appx. 883

09 Dec 2010: Rev-Lyn Contracting Co. v Patriot Marine, LLC, 2010 WL 5104845

02 Dec 2010: Crist v Carnival Corp., 410 Fed.Appx. 197

02 Dec 2010: Deering v National Maintenance & Repair, Inc., 627 F.3d 1039

29 Nov 2010: Alphamate Commodity GMBH v CHS Europe SA, 627 F.3d 183

19 Nov 2010: Rinker v Carnival Corp., 2010 WL 4811760

04 Nov 2010: In re M/V Rickmers Genoa Litigation, 2010 WL 4446080

22 Oct 2010: American Mill. Co. v Brennan Marine, Inc., 623 F.3d 1221

19 Oct 2010: American Mill. Co. v Trustee of Distribution Trust, 623 F.3d 570

19 Oct 2010: Willis v Indiana Harbor Steamship Co., L.L.C., 790 N.W.2d 177

06 Oct 2010: Gulf Coast Shell and Aggregate LP v Newlin, 623 F.3d 235

05 Oct 2010: Phoenix Bulk Carriers, Ltd. v America Metals Trading, LLP, 742 F.Supp.2d 486

30 Sep 2010: In re Carter, 743 F.Supp.2d 103

22 Sep 2010: Carrier v Jordaan, 2010 WL 3743649

3 Sep 2010: Allied Maritime, Inc. v Descatrade SA, 620 F.3d 70

31 Aug 2010: Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v Yi Da Xin Trading Corp., 619 F.3d 207

19 Aug 2010: Uralde v US, 614 F.3d 1282

06 Aug 2010: Reino de Espan" v American Bureau of Shipping, 729 F.Supp.2d 635

06 Aug 2010: Quail Cruises Ship Management Ltd. v Agencia de Viagens CVC Tur Limitada, 732 F.Supp.2d 1345

30 Jul 2010: Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v Unidentified, Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 727 F.Supp.2d 1341

19 Jul 2010: Oliver v Omega Protein, Inc., 2010 WL 2976522

12 Jul 2010: Kiesgen v St. Clair Marine Salvage, Inc., 724 F.Supp.2d 721

23 Jun 2010: Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., Inc. v CHIOS BEAUTY MV, 610 F.3d 263

08 Jun 2010: ProShipLine Inc. v Aspen Infrastructures Ltd., 609 F.3d 960

03 Jun 2010: Rogers v Coastal Towing, L.L.C., 723 F.Supp.2d 929

27 May 2010: Luckhart v Southern Ill. Riverboat/ Casino Cruises, Inc., 2010 WL 2137451

21 May 2010: Sinotrans Container Lines Co., Ltd. v North China Cargo Services, 380 Fed.Appx. 588

27 Apr 2010: Stolt-Neilsen S.A. v AnimalFeeds International Corp. S.Ct 2010 WL 1655826

26 Apr 2010: Blue Marine Shipping SA de CV v Gulmar Offshore Middle East LLC Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1687737 N.D.Fla., 2010

23 Apr 2010: Mississippi La. Dirt Co., L.L. C. v B&S Equipment Co., Inc. Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1729423 E.D.La., 2010

16 Apr 2010: Caytrans BBC, LLC v Equipment Rental and Contractors Corp. Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1541444 S.D.Ala., 2010

31 Mar 2010: McDermott Gulf Operating Co., Inc. v Con Dive LLC Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1225958 C.A.11 ( Ala.) 2010

30 Mar 2010: Barna Conshipping, S.L. v 8,000 Metric Tons Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1443542 S.D.Tex., 2010

30 Mar 2010: Black Stallion Enterprises v Bay & Ocean Marine, LLC Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1333272 E.D.La., 2010

29 Mar 2010: Transmontaigne Product Services, Inc. v M/V Wilbur R. Clark Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1267302 S.D.Ala., 2010

19 Mar 2010: Americas Bulk Transport Ltd. v IMT Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1047674 S.D.N.Y., 2010

05 Mar 2010: Skippers & Maritime Services Ltd. v KfW Slip Copy, 2010 WL 882991 S.D.N.Y., 2010

03 Mar 2010: Canton Port Services, LLC v M/V SNOW BIRD F.Supp.2d 2010 WL 742561 D.Md., 2010

11 Mar 2010: Chi Ho Maritime S.A. v C & Merchant Marine Co. Ltd Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1253720 S.D.N.Y., 2010

28 Feb 2010: Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R. Co. v Seaway Marine Transport 596 F.3d 357 C.A.6 ( Ohio), 2010

11 Feb 2010: Stucco and Const. Materials, Inc. v Trans-Net, Inc. Slip Copy, 2010 WL 546912

04 Feb 2010: Travelers Ins. Co. v Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane Ve Ulasim Sanayi F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 572117 S.D.N.Y., 2010

02 Feb 2010: Blue Water Marine Services, Inc. v m/y Natalita III Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1330265 S.D.Fla., 2010

28 Jan 2010: Aqua Log, Inc. v Georgia 594 F.3d 1330 C.A.11 ( Ga.), 2010

26 Jan 2010: Tradearbed Inc. v Western Bulk Carriers K/S Slip Copy, 2010 WL 291778 C.A.5 ( La.), 2010

25 Jan 2010: Calais Shipholding Co. v Bronwen Energy Trading Ltd. Slip Copy, 2010 WL 308465 S.D.N.Y., 2010

21 Jan 2010: Dann Marine Towing, L.C. v McLean Contracting Co. Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1486008 E.D.Va., 2010

19 Jan 2010: Lavender Intern. S.A. v Industrial Carriers Inc. Slip Copy, 2010 WL 286638 S.D.N.Y., 2010

14 Jan 2010: Armada (Singapore) Pte Ltd. v North China Shipping Co. Ltd., (BVI) Slip Copy, 2010 WL 481061 S.D.N.Y., 2010

11 Jan 2010: Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services Pte Ltd. v MISC Berhad 591 F.3d 1208 C.A.9 ( Cal.), 2010

2009

25 Nov 2009: Central Shipping Company Ltd. v Internaut Shipping Ltd. 679 F.Supp.2d 390 S.D.N.Y., 2009

13 Nov 2009: China Nat. Chartering Corp. v Pactrans Air & Sea, Inc. Slip Copy, 2009 WL 3805596 S.D.N.Y., 2009

12 Nov 2009: CPM Corp. Ltd. v Prominent Shipping PTE Ltd. Slip Copy, 2009 WL 3787380 S.D.N.Y. 2009

19 Oct 2009: Sea Village Marina, LLC v A 1980 Carlcraft Houseboat, Hull ID No. Slip Copy, 2009 WL 3379923 D.N.J., 2009

28 Sep 2009: Emeraldian Ltd. Partnership v Wellmix Shipping Ltd. Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 3076094 S.D.N.Y., 2009

14 Jul 2009: Petroval Bunker Int'l B.v v CMA CGM S.A. 636 F.Supp.2d 300 S.D.N.Y., 2009

08 Jul 2009: Transfield ER Cape Ltd. v Industrial Carriers Inc. F.3d 2009 WL 1940859 C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2009

23 Jun 2009: Transportes Navieros and Terrestres S.A. De C.v v Fairmount Heavy F.3d 2009 WL 1756437 C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2009

18 Jun 2009: Kulberg Finances Inc. v Spark Trading D.M.C.C. F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 1726284 S.D.N.Y. 2009

13 May 2009: In re Hlywiak 613 F.Supp.2d 647 D.N.J. 2009

08 May 2009: Mazda Motors of America Inc v M/V COUGAR ACE. 565 F.3d 573 C.A.9 (Or.) 2009

27 Apr 2009: Smith v the Abandoned Vessel 610 F.Supp.2d 739 S.D.Tex. 2009

27 Apr 2009: Abdelnour v Bassett Custom Boatworks, Inc. 614 F.Supp.2d 123 D.Mass. 2009

19 Mar 2009: STX Panocean ( UK) Co., Ltd. v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd 560 F.3d 127 C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2009

16 Mar 2009: Budisukma Permai SDN BHD v N.M.K. Products & Agencies Lanka (Private) 606 F.Supp.2d 391

11 Mar 2009: Slavchev v Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd F.3d 251 C.A.4 ( Md.) 2009

2008

04 Dec 2008: Penguin Maritime Ltd. v Lee & Muirhead Ltd. 588 F.Supp.2d 522 S.D.N.Y. 2008

04 Dec 2008: Beluga Chartering GMBH v Korea Logistics Systems Inc. 589 F.Supp.2d 325 S.D.N.Y. 2008

27 Oct 2008: Colonna's Shipyard, Inc. v USA.F. General Hoyts Vandenberg. 584 F.Supp.2d 862 E.D.Va. 2008

04 Oct 2008: Kalafrana Shipping Ltd. v Sea Gull Shipping Co. Ltd. 591 F.Supp.2d 505 S.D.N.Y. 2008

30 Sep 2008: Fortis Corporate Ins. SA v M/V Invike. 579 F.Supp.2d 974 N.D.Ohio 2008

25 Jul 2008: Board of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist. v M/V Belle of Orleans. 535 F.3d 1299 C.A.11 (Ala.) 2008

14 Jul 2008: In re S.D.S. Lumber Co ex rel. Tug Bruce M. 567 F.Supp.2d 1302 D. Or. 2008

25 Apr 2008: A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S v Ocean Express Miami 550 F.Supp.2d 454 S.D.N.Y. 2008

25 Apr 2008: Padre Shipping, Inc. v Yong He Shipping 553 F.Supp.2d 328 S.D.N.Y. 2008

19 Mar 2008: Novoship (UK) Ltd. v Ruperti. 545 F.Supp.2d 328 S.D.N.Y. 2008

19 Mar 2008: Great American Ins. Co. v US 552 F.Supp.2d 703 S.D.Ohio 2008

22 Feb 2008: Sanko Steamship Co., Ltd. v China Nat. Chartering Corp. 536 F.Supp.2d 362 S.D.N.Y. 2008

24 Jan 2008: Compagnie Maritime Marfret v San Juan Bay Pilots. Corp. 532 F.Supp.2d 369 D.Puerto Rico 2008

2007

05 Mar 2007: Sinochem International Co. Ltd. v Malaysia International Shipping Corp 127 S.Ct. 1184 [2007 AMC 609]
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - compensation for loss due to arrest of ship in China - claim that petition in Chinese court to arrest contained negligent misrepresentations - doctrine of forum non conveniens – whether the United Sates District Court must first conclusively establish jurisdiction before dismissing action.

2006

06 Jul 2006: APL Co Pte Ltd v UK Aerosols Ltd, et al, 452 FSupp2d 939 (NDCal) [2006 AMC 1680]
BILLS OF LADING – parties to a bill of lading – negligence and breach of contract claims - whether one of several defendant merchants alleged to be jointly and severally liable by carrier for damage caused by "leaking, dangerous and hazardous" goods was a party to the bill of lading and thus liable – plaintiff argues the defendant, while not a signatory to the bill of lading, demonstrated an intent to be bound by requesting to inspect and salvage the goods and inquiring into the cost of cleanup – held, 1) these allegations of fact are insufficient and do not suggest the defendant asserted an interest in and control over the goods, such that a court may find implied acceptance of the contract – 2) further, cases cited by plaintiff for the proposition that the defendant is nonetheless liable as a "merchant" within the meaning of the contract still require some form of acceptance of the contract – 3) plaintiff's negligence claim fails to the extent it rests on contractual duties breached, and facts alleged are too conclusatory to support an independent negligence claim.

27 Jun 2006: Tern Shipholding Corporation, et al v John Rockhill, et al, Not Reported in FSupp2d (NDFla) [2006 AMC 1708]
MAINTENANCE, CURE AND WAGES – maximum cure – personal injury – respondent seaman who contracted cancer while employed seeks court order that ship management company remains responsible for his maintenance and cure after his employment ended – law of maintenance and cure imposes duty on ship owner to provide an injured seaman maintenance and cure up to the point of "maximum cure" – whether point of maximum cure was reached when seaman's condition developed into extensive small cell cancer, where no cure was expected – held, shipper was not responsible for maintenance and cure beyond the point at which seaman's condition became incurable – court regards continuing treatment as being able only to reduce symptoms and ease pain - the fact that stopping his treatment may also reduce the seaman's lifespan, and continuing with it could add a period of time, is acknowledged but court states that maintenance and cure is not the equivalent of long-term disability insurance.

23 May 2006: Offshore Marine Towing, Inc and M/V Wilma's Idea, et al, Arbitration Decision [2006 AMC 1726]
SALVAGE – definition of a peril - salvor responded to mayday call of vessel taking on water and sinking, and provided pumps and plugged an opening from outside the vessel – vessel owner disputes salvor's contention that there was a peril, and therefore a salvage – held, a vessel taking on water which cannot be controlled without outside assistance and which will ultimately lead to sinking of the vessel is in peril – further, contract clearly printed with word "salvage" and signed by vessel owner, also demonstrates the parties agreed at the time that the services were a salvage.

12 May 2006: Northern Insurance Company of New York v 1996 Searay Model 370DA Yacht, et al, 453 FSupp2d 905 (DSC) [2006 AMC 1570] 13 Feb 2006
TITLE TO VESSEL – stolen vessel – in custodia legis expenses - suit by marine insurer to restore possession of and title to vessel to itself or insured – vessel was stolen from the insured, its hull identification number changed, and sold to defendant in this suit – defendant argues it is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and seeks reimbursement for betterment, maintenance, insurance, storage, and lost usage – under Florida law, thief cannot pass valid title to buyer, and the most a purchaser of a stolen item has is title and right to possession against all but the rightful owner – registration of the vessel under incorrect hull identification number is not conclusive evidence of ownership - held, 1) vessel belongs to the insurer since defendant never possessed valid title, and having no legal title, could not grant mortgage to defendant bank – 2) defendant purchaser is entitled to reimbursement given evidence of having spent substantial sums for vessel's betterment, 3) since plaintiff made the decision to arrest the vessel and where it should be stored, court in its equitable discretion holds that plaintiff should bear all in custodia legis expenses (amended 12 May 2006 to hold that defendant should pay for some portion of the in custodia legis expenses since defendant did not consent to turning the vessel over to the plaintiff).

11 May 2006: Marine Towing and Salvage, Inc – M/V Jersey Devil, et al, Arbitration Decision [2006 AMC 1739]
SALVAGE – definition of a peril – fishing vessel with passengers strikes submerged rocks near the beach after a navigational error due to fog – salvor responds to distress call and tows vessel to deep waters and then to repair facilities – vessel owner claims the services were a tow and not a salvage – pivotal issue is whether there was a peril, the first element in a claim for a salvage award – a peril is where there is a reasonable apprehension that the vessel may be lost or destroyed – no need to show imminence or actual danger – held, nature of the distress call, abandonment of vessel by passengers, and inability of other vessels nearby to help all suggest a peril.

28 Apr 2006: Zarepta Chemical, KS as owners of the M/T Rachel B, et al v Solae, LLC, Slip Copy (SDNY) [2006 AMC 1546]
ARBITRATION – agents - bills of lading – current owner of vessel and the managing agent of the former owner of the vessel move for an injunction enjoining arbitration arguing they are not proper parties for arbitration – respondent owner of cargo contaminated during two separate voyages on the vessel operated by the previous owner opposes the motion – whether the parties are required to arbitrate – held, 1) managing agent to previous owner can be compelled to arbitrate because even though the identity of the owner of the vessel was not disclosed at the time of the contract of affreightment, by the time the bill of lading was issued, the principal was fully disclosed - 2) court enjoins arbitration against current vessel owner, in rem, where no arrest was made of the vessel nor an undertaking equivalent to an arrest given.

12 Apr 2006: America S/A Frutas E. Alimentos, et al v M/V Cap San Rafael, et al, 426 FSupp2d 312 (EDPa) [2006 AMC 1028]
BILLS OF LADING – liability for damage to mangoes caused solely by delay in delivery – burden of proving damage occurred during delivery – parties are free to contract away liability, in this case, liability for delay – but if liable, calculation of damages depends here on whether a container constitutes a COGSA "package" or each pallet or each free-shipped carton is the "package" – held, (1) defendant has shown liability for delay was contracted away, but a triable issue of fact remains as to whether defendant was negligent, in which case, liability remains – (2) each pallet and free-shipped carton is a "package" under COGSA.

29 Mar 2006: Cementos Andinos Dominicanos, SA v East Bulk Shipping SA, (Not reported in FSupp2d) [2006 AMC 1121]
BILLS OF LADING – arbitration over damages incurred when vessel ran aground – sub-sub-charterer (plaintiff) seeks to compel vessel owner to arbitrate in New York claiming the charter, whose terms call for arbitration there, controls – vessel owner claims not to be a party to that agreement, formally between a sub-charterer and the plaintiff – whether by signing the bill of lading, master of the vessel bound the vessel owner to the disputed charter - held, (1) the law in the Second Circuit being well settled, vessel's master, as agent, made the vessel owner a party to the agreement when he signed the bill of lading - (2) arbitration clause was sufficiently broad to cover this dispute.

21 Mar 2006: Contship Containerlines Ltd v PPG Industries Inc USCA 2 nd Cir [2006 AMC 686]
SHIPPING – carriage of goods – carrier stowed calcium hypochloride on top of a heated tank knowing that heat could cause a thermal runaway under some conditions – carrier cannot invoke the strict liability imposed on a shipper of dangerous goods under COGSA § 1304(6) where carrier knows the cargo poses a danger and requires gingerly handling and stowage yet exposes the cargo to the general condition that triggers the known danger even where carrier is not aware of the precise characteristics of the cargo.

15 Mar 2006: SAT International Corp v Great White Fleet (US) Ltd, et al, Not reported in FSupp2d (SDNY) [2006 AMC 1108]
BILLS OF LADING –hijacking of plaintiff's cargo during inland transport – whether ocean liner's preceding misdelivery of container to unauthorized trucker who failed to present bill of lading before acquiring the cargo at port amounted to a violation of a maritime contract sufficient to provide jurisdiction for the court – if the court has jurisdiction, whether defendant breached the contract through improper delivery – admiralty jurisdiction arises when the subject matter of the contract is purely or wholly maritime in nature – connection of cargo to global maritime commerce is key - held, (1) failure by an ocean liner to require recipient of cargo to present original bill of lading is prima facie evidence of conversion of goods and breach of contract, the claim is maritime in nature, and the court has jurisdiction – (2) however, since presentation of the bill of lading was not a requirement under the parties' contract, and failure to present bill of lading did not cause plaintiffs loss (rather, loss was due to the interdiction of highway men and plaintiff's failure to request cargo be kept at port until the necessary security could be arranged for inland transport), defendant is not liable for conversion.

24 Feb 2006: David E Mullane et al v Adele Chambers et al USCA 1 st Cir [2006 AMC 467]
MARITIME LIENS – Federal Maritime Lien Act 46 USC. § 31342 – purchaser of boat paid off seller's mortgage – before sale and discharge were registered creditors of seller made in rem claim on vessel – whether rule of advancements created lien in favour of purchaser – purpose of maritime liens to safeguard interests of strangers to vessel – purchaser's 'advance' compensated by ownership of vessel.

14 Feb 2006: Stolt Achievement Ltd v Dredge BE Lindholm et al USCA 5 th Cir [2006 AMC 416]
COLLISION – negligence – apportionment of liability – Pennsylvania rule – where both parties to collision in breach of navigation statutes, court may blame between parties – ratio of 50-50 is still appropriate in some mutual fault cases – Inland Navigation Rules – superseding cause – proximate causation – average.
EXPERT WITNESS – testimony of master mariner properly restricted to conclusions based on his experience as a master mariner, testimony on hydrodynamic effects properly excluded.

21 Feb 2006: National Casualty Company v Lockheed Martin Corporation USDC (D Maryland) [2006 AMC 618]
MARINE INSURANCE – time limitations – conflicting contractual provisions.

07 Feb 2006: Motor-Services Hugo Stamp, Inc v M/V Regal Empress, et al, Not published in the Federal Reporter (11th Cir) [2006 AMC 908 (Ltd)]
MARITIME LIENS – status of property on board luxury cruise ship – appurtenances – whether telecommunications and internet equipment for use by passengers and crew of cruise ship is appurtenant to the ship and therefore subject to maritime liens asserted against the vessel – a vessel and all equipment aboard that is essential to the vessel's navigation and operation is subject to maritime liens – held, telecommunications and internet equipment is subject to maritime liens as it is "unimaginable" that today a luxury cruise ship could be successful without such equipment.

07 Feb 2006: Malaysia International Shipping Corporation vSinochem International Co Ltd USCA 3 rd Cir [2006 AMC 383]
ADMIRALTY – torts – location test – tort occurs where the tortious act takes effect – although defendant's negligent misrepresentation of plaintiff's acts to a Chinese court occurred ashore, the resulting seizure of plaintiff's vessel was on navigable waters – forum non conveniens is a non-jurisdictional and non-merits procedural issue – court must determine that it has subject matter and personal jurisdiction before considering forum non conveniens.

06 Feb 2006: Liberty International Underwriters v Ernest D Carlson, Not Reported in FSupp2d (WDWash) [2006 AMC 1140]
MARINE INSURANCE – insured seeks compensation from insurance carrier for water damage to deck of fishing boat due to defective design or construction of the deck with the scuppers – policy covers latent defects in a variation of the inchmaree clause - insurer argues the damage is a design defect that as a matter of law, cannot be a latent defect – definition of a latent defect - held, 1) cases offered by insurer do not suggest a design defect cannot also be a latent defect, 2) a latent defect is one a reasonably skilled ship owner would not discover during a reasonably careful inspection, 2) fortuity doctrine (principle that insurer need only cover losses not due to planned, intended or anticipated events) does not apply as insurer produced no evidence insured knew he would suffer a loss.

31 Jan 2006: RMS Titanic Inc v Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel USCA 4 th Cir [2006 AMC 305]
SALVAGE – claim of salvor-in-possession to title of salved artefacts – US district court asked to recognise French administrative decision awarding title to salvor – in rem jurisdiction of US district court – proper application of law of finds – trustee duties of salvor – right to compensation – maritime lien on salved property does not divest owner of title – orders for protection of historical, archaeological and cultural purposes of salvage operation.

20 Jan 2006: Ullises Shipping Corp v FAL Shipping Co Ltd, et al, 415 FSupp2d 318 (SDNY) [2006 AMC 1094]
CORPORATIONS – piercing the corporate veil – plaintiff, a Liberian corporation, obtained an ex parte order of attachment and garnishment from the district court over three defendants as alter egos – plaintiff has brought suit over one of them in the High Court of London after its chartered vessel was detained on suspicion of carrying oil subject to the Iraqi embargo and sold at auction – defendants (FAL Shipping, FAL Oil, FAL Energy) are separately registered under the laws of the United Arab Emirates and keep separate books and records, but all are owned and controlled by a single individual, and share employees and the same general manager - defendants state that attachment order over FAL Energy and FAL Oil was improper as they are not being sued in the London litigation – federal courts in admiralty apply federal common law when examining corporate identity – piercing the corporate veil allowed when corporation uses its alter ego to perpetuate fraud or where alter ego is carrying on controlling corporation's business in stead of its own – actual domination rather than an opportunity to exercise control must be shown - held, (1) issuance of a joint statement by FAL Energy and FAL Oil on same stationary was not a reasonable ground for concluding domination and control of one by the other – but with regard FAL Oil and FAL Shipping, former's payment of latter's debts together with overlapping staff and manager was reasonable grounds for such a conclusion – (2) counter-security awarded to defendants given attorneys' fees resulting from London litigation are inextricably intertwined with the original transaction that is the subject of the London litigation.

19 Jan 2006: Addie Holmes v Atlantic Sounding Company Inc, et al USCA 5 th Cir [2006 AMC 182]
MARITIME LAW – personal injury – Merchant Marine Act – definition of 'vessel' –water-borne structure capable of transportation is a 'vessel' – dormitory barge used in dredging operations considered to be vessel, despite not being intended for use as transport – definition of 'seaman' – worker's duties must contribute to vessel's mission or function and connection must be substantial in nature and duration.

11 Jan 2006: Erne Shipping Inc v HBC Hamburg Bulk Carriers GMBH & Co KG USDC (SD NY) [2006 AMC 225]
MARITIME – order of attachment – Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, Rule B – whether defendant 'found within the district' – defendant must have sufficient contacts with district – the defendant had no continuous and systematic activity in NY and therefore was not subject to general jurisdiction in the state.

06 Jan 2006: Otal Investments Ltd, Limitation Proceedings M/V Kariba USDC (SDNY) [2006 AMC 106]
COLLISION – liability – Brussels Collision Convention, Article 4 – exclusion of Pennsylvania Rule – COLREGS, Rules 8, 19.

03 Jan 2006: J & A Fleeting Inc v Fireman's Fund McGee Marine Underwriters USDC (ED Kentucky) [2006 AMC 535]
MARINE INSURANCE – seaworthiness – when vessel sinks in berth in calm water there is a presumption of unseaworthiness – burden falls on assured to produce evidence to the contrary.

03 Jan 2006: CVG Ferrominera Orinoco CA v Transportes Ferreos De Venezuela CA et al USDC (SD NY) [2006 AMC 201]
ARBITRATION – agreement to arbitrate "all claims" includes arbitration of the issue of whether one party to the arbitration agreement is the alter ego of another party.

2005

29 Nov 2005: Interflow (Tank Container System) Ltd v Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co et al USDC (SD Texas) [2005 AMC 2894]
Afreightment, sea carrier's bill of lading never issued because cargo seriously damaged by it before loading for first stage of through carriage, loss governed by COGSA under carrier's standard bill of lading in accordance with an implied understanding arising from common business experience, limitation of value, Himalaya clause

10 Nov 2005: Motor-Services Hugo Stamp Inc v M/V Regal Empress et al USDC (MD Florida) [2005 AMC 2880]
Termination pay that becomes due upon early termination of seaman's contract constitutes seaman's wages and is entitled to maritime lien status, termination pay that becomes payable after their ship's arrested can constitute a maritime lien where it is based on services performed before the arrest, however the claims for early termination of employment were for damages in contract and were not wage liens

04 Nov 2005: Shirley Bird v Celebrity Cruise Line Inc USDC (SD Florida) [2005 AMC 2794]
Admiralty jurisdiction exists for claim that passenger contracted food poisoning on board ship and became ill after cruise, location test met because the food poisoning occurred on the ship and food poisoning can disrupt commerce, serving food a traditional maritime activity, admiralty does not imply a warranty of safe passage or seaworthiness from a cruise line to a passenger, products liability – the Kermarac standard of care a shipowner owes to persons legitimately on board ship ('reasonable care under the circumstances') precludes finding a cruise line strictly liable in tort for food poisoning

02 Nov 2005: Dannebrog Rederi AS et al v M/Y True Dream et al USDC (SD Florida) [2005 AMC 2740]
The holding that a freight forwarder is an agent for the limited purpose of binding a shipper to liability limitations of downstream carriers is not limited to freight forwarders, also applies to other intermediaries such as a party that had a space charter with the shipper and then entered into a booking note with the shipowner, shipper bound by limits in booking note although not in the charter to which it was a direct party, the contractual extension of COGSA to inland transportation is valid to limit the liability of a carrier that negligently damages cargo

01 Nov 2005: Key Tow Inc v M/V Just J's et al USDC (SD Florida) [2005 AMC 2840]
Salvage, salvor not entitled to salvage award, was an implied contract to salvage so its actions were not voluntary, although the boat was aground it was not in marine peril as it would have floated off on next high tide, salvor forfeited any salvage award by its fraud in grossly exaggerating the amount due from the boat, misrepresentation of times and manpower and value of equipment, performed more work than necessary to create big claim, salvor was entitled to quantum meruit compensation for the benefit it provided

28 Oct 2005: Clinton River Cruise Co, Limitation Proceedings M/V Clinton Friendship USDC (ED Michigan) [2005 AMC 2728]
Passenger overboard, manning statute required vessel to carry the crewmembers specified by its Coast Guard certificate, vessel violated this as only had one deckhand when two required, the violation was negligence per se and engaged the Pennsylvania Rule, fault could therefore be determined by summary judgment, vessel subject to the Pennsylvania presumption of causation in the death of a passenger overboard, duty of care to detect the intention of an intoxicated passenger to dive overboard and prevent it or rescue him

26 Oct 2005: Aquae International Inc v M/Y Osiana II USDC (SD Massachusetts) [2005 AMC 2770]
Procedure in rem, a vessel is a fictional person that can be sued but it cannot file a counterclaim on its own or by next friend when it opposes a motion to add its owner as a real party in interest

26 Oct 2005: Captain Sheriff Saudi v Northrop Grumman Corporation USCA 4 th Cir [2005 AMC 2831]; 427 F.3d 271
Jurisdiction in personam, whether sufficient contacts, the Singapore shipyard's contacts with the US were insufficient to satisfy due process for jurisdiction over it as a defendant in action for personal injury on the high seas, subsidiary's contacts cannot impute jurisdiction in the parent – defendant's subsidiary shipyard in Texas did not, in itself, provide a basis for general jurisdiction

25 Oct 2005: Puerto Rico Ports Authority v Barge Katy-B USCA 1 st Cir [2005 AMC 2409]
arrest of vessel, arrest of barge not justified where original complaint sought in rem damages for port charges predating sale of barge but where amended complaint sought post-sale charges only in personam, interlocutory decree vacating a ship arrest in an action in rem is subject to admiralty appeal, release of vessel from arrest does not divest the court of jurisdiction under 'useless judgment' doctrine, maritime liens, whether waiver – need deliberate intent to relinquish lien rights

18 Oct 2005: M/V DG Harmony USDC (SDNY) [2005 AMC 2528]
affreightment, dangerous goods cause a fire, IMDG Code, strict liability of manufacturer, ship and cargo interests had no actual or constructive knowledge of the nature of cargo – shipper in a better position to determine nature of goods, strict liability on shipper of dangerous goods, COGSA s4(6)

17 Oct 2005: Rationis Enterprises Inc of Panama et al v Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Co Ltd et al USCA 2 nd Cir [2005 AMC 2516]
cargo damage claim, notice of intent to rely on foreign law, claim for cargo damage under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) may be a mix of tort & contract & bailment, products liability for ship failure on high seas causing loss of vessel and cargo, conflict of laws, limitations, claims time-barred under Korean products liability law, Korean law applies

30 Sep 2005: Marco Forwarding Co v Continental Casualty Company USDC (SD Florida) [2005 AMC 2669]
marine insurance, choice of law and forum provisions were not negotiated, whether unequal bargaining power, insured not meet the burden of showing the inconvenience of litigating in Canada

29 Sep 2005: Otal Investments Ltd, Limitation Proceedings M/V Kariba USDC (SDNY) [2005 AMC 2461]
collision on high seas, causation, 1910 Brussels Collision Convention Article 6 – there 'shall be no legal presumptions of fault in regard to liability for collision', Convention precludes application of the Pennsylvania Rule presuming that a statutory violation caused a collision, 'fault' in the Convention includes both culpability and causation

21 Sep 2005: Asoma Corporation v M/V Faros et al USDC (SDNY) [2005 AMC 2473]
bills of lading, where a bill of lading is issued to a stranger to a charter the bill becomes the contract of charter, bill of lading had Korean jurisdiction clause, suit in SDNY for cargo damage is dismissed

19 Sep 2005: Miller Marine Services Inc v Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Co et al USDC (EDNY) [2005 AMC 2601]
marine insurance, vessel sank at pier, all risks clause, words 'all other like risks' after named perils do not make the policy an all risks policy, word 'like' restricts coverage to similar perils, named perils policy, hull policy, causation, not due to peril of the sea

16 Sep 2005: Ventura Packers Inc v F/V Jeanine Kathleen et al USCA 9 th Cir as amended [2005 AMC 2113]
securities for release of vessel put in escrow, case wrongly dismissed for lack of admiralty jurisdiction, securities returned on order of court, court did not lose jurisdiction for lack of custody of the securities, useless judgment doctrine not apply – vessels and securities still existed in hands of defendant and district court could order them reinstated

16 Sep 2005: Pablo Membreno v Costa Crociere SPA et al USCA 11 th Cir [2005 AMC 2527]
forum non conveniens, personal injury, foreign vessel, substantial base of operations in US not sufficient, parent and subsidiary, most of business from European market

12 Sep 2005: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v Inlet Fisheries Inc et al USDC ( Alaska) [2005 AMC 2307]
expert witnesses, underwriting, marine pollution insurance policy, disclosure of pollution loss history, doctrine of uberrimae fidei – disclose material facts to insurer, survey and repair of vessels, good faith

25 Aug 2005: Agfa Gevaert AG et al v TMM Lines Limited et al; Allianz Marine & Aviation ( France) v Lykes Limited L.L.C. et al USDC (SDNY) [2005 AMC 2378]
bill of lading, limitation of liability/value, ambiguities construed against the carrier

11 Aug 2005: In Re Millenium Seacarriers Inc et al USCA 2 nd Cir [2005 AMC 1987]
interaction of admiralty and bankruptcy, maritime liens – extinguishment, in rem jurisdiction

10 Aug 2005: Thyssen Inc v Nobility MV et al USCA 5 th Cir [2005 AMC 2067]
affreightment, voyage charter, COGSA clause paramount, private carriage, Free In Out Stowed clause – responsibility of cargo owner to discharge vessel, stevedore an agent of cargo not vessel, vessel not responsible for damage done by stevedore to cargo, marine insurance, late notice by insured – lack of opportunity to defend or mitigate damages, whether underwriters directly liable to third parties, insurers showed sufficient prejudice to preclude direct action

01 Aug 2005: Caribbean Yacht Works Ltd v M/V Neenah Z et al USDC (SD Florida) [2005 AMC 2159]
action in rem, no maritime lien, whether can amend to in personam action, whether prejudice to owner, amendment relates back to time original complaint filed – time to determine whether defendant could be found in district, application for release of vessel

29 Jul 2005: Fortis Bank ( Nederland) NV v M/V Shamrock et al USDC ( Maine) [2005 AMC 2561]
maritime liens, rank and priorities, mortgages of vessels, priority, US law governs, whether claim constitutes custodia legis, contributions due from shipowner/crew of French ship to French governmental agency (based on wages of the crew) for the purpose of health and life insurance and pension benefits do not constitute wages of the crew to support a maritime lien

28 Jul 2005: Otal Investments Ltd, M/V Kariba, Limitation Proceedings USDC (SDNY) [2005 AMC 2454]
vessel arrested in US, shipowner seeks to dismiss in rem claim, shipowner filed limitation proceeding and posted security pursuant to Limitation of Liability Convention 1976, US not a party to Convention therefore not recognised by US courts, maritime lien, motion to dismiss in rem claim denied

27 Jul 2005: Eimskip v Atlantic Fish Market USCA 1st Cir (Mass)
SHIPPING – UNPAID FREIGHT - Atlantic booked two shipments of frozen herring to be transported by Eimskip. The bills of lading listed Mayflower as the fish's shipper, but Atlantic received the freight invoices and paid the charges. Freight went unpaid, Eimskip placed a hold on the cargo. The district court found that Atlantic and Mayflower had both been shippers of the cargo. Because Mayflower was listed as the shipper and consignee on the bills of lading, it was presumptively primarily liable for the freight charges. However, ultimately Atlantic was held primarily liable because of its representations to both Mayflower and Eimskip that it would be liable for the cargo; the course of dealings and Eimskip's decision to lift the hold on the cargo after speaking to Atlantic's president. The B/L making the "merchant" liable applied to both Atlantic and Mayflower and made each company jointly and severally liable for specified costs and attorneys' fees. District Court's judgment was affirmed.

25 Jul 2005: In re Mid-South Towing Co USCA 5th (La) Cir
ALLISION – LIMITATION OF LIABILITY - Vessel collided into a wharf. The vessel brought an action in rem against three other vessels on the river that morning, alleging that those vessels had so embarrassed her navigation as to be contributory and proximate causes of the allision and thus deserving of some liability for the damages incurred by the owner of the wharf. The district court found that any negligent conduct of the vessels was not a proximate cause of the allision. Therefore the district court applied a valid rule of legal causation and not the discredited last clear chance doctrine. District court's judgment affirmed.

21 Jul 2005: Stemcor USA Inc v M/V Patria USDC (SD Tex)
ARBITRATION – TIMELINESS - Cargo arrived at its destination damaged. Cargo owner (Stemcor) sued the vessel in rem and its time charterers for damages. The vessel's time charterer sought to dismiss the claim on the ground that the charter party contractually obligated Stemcor to seek arbitration within twelve months of the cargo being discharged. Held: Whether a request for arbitration is timely made under an arbitration agreement is a matter of procedural arbitrability that is for an arbitrator to decide. Action dismissed without prejudice to permit the parties to pursue arbitration in accordance with their agreement.

21 Jul 2005: BDL International v Sodetal USA Inc USDC (D South Carolina)
UNPAID SERVICES – MARITIME CONTRACT – STAY - Non-payment of freight charges for ocean shipments from France to the US. The waybills named the defendant (owner of goods) as the consignee. The defendant paid the shipper who in turn paid the plaintiff, who arranged for inland freight. Plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of maritime contract after the shipper failed to pay. Fact that delivery was sent overland did not alter the contract's maritime nature – an evolving understanding of admiralty jurisdiction was taken into account. Defendant sought a stay due to the shipper's bankruptcy proceedings in France – denied.

15 Jul 2005: Fuesting v Lafayette Parish Bayou Vermilion District USDC (WD La)
ALLISION – SUNKEN BOAT – DUTY OF AUTHORITIES - Allision between small pleasure boat and a sunken shrimp boat, causing injury to boat operator (Fuesting). Fuesting asserted that because the District failed to remove the sunken boat, thus creating a navigational hazard on the river, the District was liable for the injuries sustained. Although the District had no initial duty under the Wreck Act to remove the boat, because it entered into an agreement with the owner of the sunken boat to attempt its removal, the District voluntarily assumed a duty to the boating public, to remove the boat in a non-negligent manner. However, the District was held to be immune from liability under statute.

12 Jul 2005: Weeks Marine Inc v Hanjin Shipping USDC (DNJ)
COLLISION – TIME CHARTER – LIABILITY - A vessel collided with a barge while navigating with the assistance of three tugs. Hanjin was the time charterer of the vessel - question of its liability. The charter provided that the owner of the vessel is responsible for the navigation of the vessel. Since the incident occurred while the M/V HANJIN was moving from one dock to another, this constituted "navigation". Therefore, Hanjin, absent any evidence of independent negligence, could not be held liable. As there was no evidence establishing Hanjin's independent tort liability. Hanjin's summary judgment motion was granted.

8 Jul 2005: In re Otal Investments Ltd. USDC (SDNY)
COLLISION IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS – DUPLICATIVE CLAIMS - Two ships collided in international waters. Owner of one of the ships (Otal) brought an action in the Netherlands against a third ship for its alleged involvement in the collision and attached the third ship in Rotterdam. A limitation of liability fund was established and the ship released from attachment, without providing security to Otal. Otal filed a claim against the limitation of liability fund and filed a complaint in the US for exoneration of or a limitation of liability. Third ship interests sought to dismiss this in rem claim as duplicative of the claim filed in Rotterdam, and also sought a declaratory judgment with respect to whether only Article 4 of the Brussels Collision Convention of 1910 applies to this matter. Held: the parties intended to apply Article 4 of the Convention. The limitation fund prevented re-attachment but did not prevent additional claims. Under Netherlands law, Otal had an in personam claim since an in rem action is an unknown concept under Dutch law. Therefore the in rem claim was not duplicative and even if it were, the 1976 Limitation of Liability Convention was not binding since the US is not a signatory to that Convention.

30 Jun 2005: FolksAmerica Reinsurance Company v Clean Water of New York Inc USCA 2nd Cir (NY)
INSURANCE – WHETHER MARINE IN NATURE - An insurance contract contained a Shiprepairers Legal Liability (SLL) policy coupled with a modified Comprehensive General Liability (CGL) policy. Whether the Policy was a maritime contract giving rise to admiralty jurisdiction. Held: SLL created coverage of marine insurance; and the various protections provided in the CGL section - completed operations, products, pollution, premises and operations, and contractual liability - reached maritime risks; the two sections of the Policy together operated seamlessly to provide coverage that was primarily marine in nature.

20 Jun 2005: Offshore Marine Towing Inc v MR23 2005 USCA 11th Cir (Fla) 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 665
ARBITRATION AWARD - SALVAGE - LEGAL FEES - A yacht was grounded and freed by salvors. The salvage contract provided for the arbitration of disputes regardling reasonableness of fees. The arbitrator issued an award in favour of the salvor and also awarded attorney's fees. Whether attorney's fees may be awarded to a salvor in an in rem action against the vessel, whether the district court acted within its authority under the Federal Arbitration Act when it modified the arbitration award in favour of the salvor to exclude attorney's fees and expenses. Decision of the district court was affirmed, as attorney's fees are not part of a salvage lien that may be awarded in an in rem action

08 Jun 2005: Sweet Pea Marine LTd v APJ Marine Inc USCA 11th Cir (Fla)
BREACH OF CONTRACT – MARITIME LIEN - Vessel owner brought a claim against a marine contractor for breach of contract. Contractor filed a complaint in personam and in rem for work performed on the vessel. Discussion of: When one can recover damages for breach of maritime contract; the requirements for establishing a maritime lien on a vessel pursuant to statute in an in rem action; and satisfying the reasonable price element of a maritime lien claim. Held: vessel owner did not waive its ability to contest the reasonableness of the contractor's charges for goods and materials by agreeing to a 15% mark-up on them; absent evidence that its charges were reasonable, the contractor was not entitled to damages or the imposition of a maritime lien on vessel.

06 Jun 2005: Alaska v USA 125 S.Ct. 2137
TITLE TO SUBMERGED LANDS - The State of Alaska filed an action against the US government to resolve a dispute over title to certain submerged lands underlying in southeast Alaskan waters. Discussion of: claiming submerged lands based on an area's status as historic inland waters; claiming a body of water as historic inland water; juridical bay theory. Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. Held: the waters were not historic inland waters; the federal government had reserved the submerged lands underlying Glacier Bay and the remaining waters within the monument's boundaries; the Alaska Statehood Act rebutted the presumption that Alaska held title to those lands.

02 Jun 2005: Puget Sound Repair Inc v M/V Freebird USDC W.D.Wash.
MARITIME LIEN – WORK PERFORMED - Dispute as to the existence of a maritime lien arising from work done on a vessel. Held: Not shown that the company performing work had no authority to rely on the credit of the vessel or that it had intended to waive its right to assert a lien on the vessel. Motion for summary judgment in relation to work done on vessel denied.

26 May 2005: Kukje Hwajae Insurance Co Ltd v M/V HYUNDAI LIBERTY, USCA 9th Cir
BILL OF LADING - FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE - A Korean manufacturer contracted (to ship a lathe) with a non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC). Bill of lading selected New York as the forum for determining claims. The NVOCC then contracted with Hyundai. Hyundai issued a bill of lading, which provided for claims to be governed by Korean law and to be brought before a Korean court. The subrogated insurer of the manufacturer, brought actions in personam against the NVOCC and in rem against Hyundai, for damage to cargo during transportation. Held: plaintiff accepted the Hyundai bill of lading by suing on it, therefore the Korean forum-selection clause could be applied to the Plaintiff's in rem action. NVOCC was entitled to take advantage of the limitation of liability under COGSA .

25 May 2005: Ezeokobe v Hual North America Inc USDC EDNY
BILL OF LADING – FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE- COGSA - Claim against shipper for an damaged to an automobile. The bill of lading contained a forum selection clause, which provided for the settlement of disputes in the courts of the country where the carrier had its principal place of business. Contention as to who the carrier was and whether Norway or America was the principal place of business. Question of validity of the forum selection clause under COGSA. Held: Even if the forum selection clause was valid, issues of fact (the above contentions) remained that made it inappropriate to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims on the basis of the clause. However, the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed as time-barred under COGSA.

18 May 2005: Hanson Industries, Inc v Alaska Marine Transport & Salvage Inc USDC D Alaska
PROCEDURE – MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DAMAGES - Charter agreement. Before cargo reached its destination, a dispute arose as to when payment was due. Cargo owner had the vessel arrested, however subsequently allowed its release. Cargo owner did not have a maritime lien against the vessel and should not have had the vessel arrested. Therefore, it was to bear the costs of the arrest. The court allowed the cargo owner to present evidence on the issue of the vessel's size and its damages allegedly resulting from the vessel's size. However the owner was precluded from calling a particular witness.

17 May 2005: In re American Milling Co., Ltd. USCA 8th Cir (Mo)
ALLISION – LIABILITY - Barges being towed allided with a pier and moored gambling vessel in the St Louis Harbour. Questions of causation, liability and fair market value of the towboat. Held: The previous findings that the allision was caused by the towboat pilot's navigational error and that the moored gambling vessel was at fault were not erroneous. Neither was the finding that there was no privity between the owner and pilot, which therefore did not preclude the owner from limiting liability.

13 May 2005: G. Simons & Co. S.A. v New Bar of North America USDC SDNY
MARINE INSURANCE – THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY - Goods were lost in transit between New York and Moscow. The plaintiff, a managing agent in marine insurance sought a declaratory judgment that it was not liable to the defendant owner of the goods for the loss. The plaintiff had issued an insurance policy to the shippers on behalf of an insurance company. Held that the defendant: was not an insured under the Policy; had no insurable interest in the goods; did not provide International Adjusters with a notice of claim within a reasonable time; and had breached the insurance policy warranty requiring that a discharge survey be conducted. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment granted.

06 May 2005: Just Take Action Inc v GST (Americas) Inc USDC D Minnesota
DAMAGED CARGO- BILL OF LADING – NEGLIGENCE - Shipment of fermenter tanks arrived damaged at their destination. Just Take Action contracted with GST to arrange transportation, who retained CTI to transport the goods. GST prepared a bill of lading, however it was never provided to Just Take Action and never signed by GST. Liability for damages under Carmack Amendment, state law claims of negligence and breach of contract. GST's motion for summary judgment denied.

19 Apr 2005: Miracle of Life, LLC v North American Van Lines Inc USDC D South Carolina
SHIPPING – DAMAGED GOODS – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Plaintiff, arranged to ship goods to Germany. Recipient claimed some goods were missing and others damaged. Plaintiff initially sued North America Van lines, then sought to add Stevens International Forwarders' as a party. Stevens argued action was barred by the statute of limitations in COGSA and the Carmack Amendment. On the facts, Stevens did have notice of a claimed file against it, motion denied.

19 Apr 2005: New Hampshire Insurance Company v Dagnone USDC D Rhode Island
MARINE INSURANCE – LAY UP WARRANTY
Vessel owner had insurance policy, which provided that the vessel has to be 'laid-up and out of commission' ('Lay-Up Warranty') during certain periods. The vessel was docked, a storm hit and the vessel was damaged. whether a breach of the Lay-Up Warranty negates coverage under the policy even if that breach is immaterial to the damage sustained. No settled federal admiralty rule governing the issue, so the Court applied New York law. Under New York law, where a warranty in a marine insurance policy pertains to any risk of marine navigation, transit or transportation on seas or inland waters, the breach of such warranty precludes recovery under such policy. Held: owner had breached the warranty as he had not completed winterization of the vessel, therefore precluding recovery under the policy.

12 Apr 2005: DR Johnson Lumber Company v Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies USDC, D Oregon
MARINE INSURANCE –INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACT
Marine insurance policy covered the shipment of logs, which were damaged en route. Defendant insurer claimed the damage was due to an 'inherent vice' of the cargo and/or delay of the voyage. Insured received a certificate of insurance for an Open Policy (OP), it also received a Special Cargo Policy (SCP) (as proof of insurance) which did not contain an inherent vice exclusion. Question as to which policy governed the dispute. Although the contracting parties intended the insurance to be placed under the OP, there was no reference to it in the SP -this gave rise to an ambiguity as to which policy should govern the case. Held: Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that any party intended the SCP to define the terms of the insurance coverage, therefore the dispute was controlled by the OP; the plaintiff's loss was not exempt from coverage due to delay; it was reasonably open to find that damage was caused by something other than inherent vice.

06 Apr 2005: USA v Water Quality Insurance Syndicate USDC, D Maine
MARINE INSURANCE – EXCLUSION CLAUSE – WILFUL MISCONDUCT – INEBRIATION
The crew of a fishing vessel were inebriated. The owner of vessel, who had observed their drinking, ordered a crew member to operate the vessel. The boat struck an object and sank - oil spill resulted. Judgment ordered against shipowner for removal costs. Owner had a marine oil pollution insurance policy. Government sought to recover from insurer. Insurer denied liability on grounds of exclusion clause which denied coverage for damage arising from wilful misconduct. Whether recklessness resulting from voluntary intoxication is "willful misconduct" or a "fortuitous event." No existing federal maritime case law or New York law on the issue. Magistrate concluded that wilful inebriation constituted wilful misconduct and recommended the Government's motion be denied.

01 Apr 2005: Hart v Progressive Casualty Insurance Company USDC D. Alaska
BOAT SINKS – INADEQUATE MAINTENANCE – INSURANCE
A boat sank in an Alaskan harbour during a storm. The insurance company claimed that the proximate cause of the boat's sinking was the owner's failure to adequately maintain the boat – therefore, it declined to cover the loss, relying on a contractual provision excluding coverage for 'inadequate maintenance.' Held: The owner's actions (eg leaving the boat for a month with the exhaust system unfinished, elbow unsecured) came within the ambit of 'inadequate maintenance' and therefore the insurance company was entitled to exclude coverage; owner's actions were the proximate cause of the incident.

24 Mar 2005: Pacorini USA Inc v Rosina Topic MV USCA 5th Cir (La)
STEVEDORES UNPAID BY CHARTERER – MARITIME LIEN – STANDING. The Rosina, was chartered by a corporation. Clear Water and Pacorini negotiated with the corporation to discharge cargo, (Pacorini on a "liner out" basis). Charterer became insolvent, Pacorini and ClearWater did not receive payment. They filed a complaint against the vessel in rem seeking to have the vessel arrested. District court found that plaintiffs were entitled to a maritime liens to secure payment. Appellant claimed Clear Water lacked standing, that Pacorini waived its maritime lien and that damages awarded to Pacorini were excessive. Held: Clear Water lacked standing to sue; Pecorini did not waive its maritime lien; the district court did not clearly err in the level of damages awarded.

23 Mar 2005: Keytrade USA Inc v Ain Temouchent M/V USCA 5th Cir (La)
BILL OF LADING – WHETHER ARBITRATION CLAUSE INCORPORATED. Vessel was delayed by 16 days. Owner of cargo filed suit against bulk carrier and charterer for breach of contract of carriage, seeking damages. Whether the bill of lading incorporated the voyage charter's arbitration clause. Bill of lading included an incorporation clause, but did not specify the charter party that it sought to incorporate. Discussion and application of Sea Phoenix. Whether confusion as to which charter party governed the rights of the parties. Held to be no confusion and therefore bill of lading gave owner the right to compel arbitration. No waiver by owner.

16 Mar 2005: Fortis Corporate Insurance v M/V Inviken USDC ND Ohio, Western Division
GOODS DAMAGED IN TRANSIT – JURISDICTION. Goods were damaged when water entered the cargo hold of the vessel. Insurers brought action against shipowners (and managers) for negligence and breach of bailment obligations. Whether court has jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction – whether defendants purposely availed themselves of the forum, whether the time charter was a contract to provide goods in Ohio. Held: No specific jurisdiction, no general jurisdiction.

03 Mar 2005: Commercial Union Insurance Co v Pesante, USDC D Rhode Island
MARINE INSURANCE - Owner of a commercial fishing vessel engaged in gill netting. Insurance agreement included a warranty that the only commercial use of the vessel would be for lobstering. Owner returned from gill netting - collision with other boat. Insurer denies coverage on ground of breach of warranty, argues that under federal admiralty law, the breach voided the policy. No question of breach of warranty. Issue - whether that breach voided the policy even though the vessel was not engaged in gill netting when it collided with the other boat and there was no evidence of any causal connection between its gill netting activities and the loss. Policy not voided - there is no federal maritime rule that negates coverage for this loss.

11 Feb 2005: Felham Enterprises (Cayman) Ltd v Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London Companies, USDC ED Louisiana
Motion for partial summary judgment. Whether marine policy issued is void by virtue of a breach of the duty of utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei) allegedly owed under general maritime law. Held that Louisiana state law, not the general maritime doctrine of uberrimae fidei, controls the issue of whether a marine insurance policy is void by reason of an insured's alleged misrepresentation and/or failure to disclose material facts during the application process. Motion granted in part and denied in part.

04 Feb 2005: The Home Insurance Company. Co. vPan American Grain Manufacturing. Co., Inc. and Zorra Transport Inc USCA 1 st Cir, CA 1 (Puerto Rico) 2005
Marine insurance. Ship caught on fire. Breach of agreement and fraudulent inducement alleged. Negotiated settlement – not an "award" under a clause of the settlement agreement, and not a payment for "loss of use".

01 Feb 2005: Rossetti v Charleston Freight Station, Inc, USDC D. South Carolina, Charleston Division, F.Supp.2d
Shipper brought suit against carrier to recover for damage to shipment of goods during land portion of shipment of goods by sea from United States. Application of $500 limitation of liability per package under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). General discussion of bills of lading. When a bill of lading discloses what is inside the container, and those contents may reasonably be considered COGSA packages, then container is not considered to be a COGSA package. Ambiguous bill of lading – ambiguity should be resolved against the carrier unless the parties have clearly and explicitly agreed to treat the container as the COGSA package. Limitation of liability applied to each individual piece in shipper's container, not to the container as whole.

24 Jan 2005: Fathom Exploration, LLC vUnidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, etc, in rem, USDC SD Alabama Southern Division, F.Supp.2d
Salvor filed action against unidentified shipwrecked vessel. United States filed motion for more definite statement or dismissal. Federal civil procedure. Discussion of laws of salvage and finds. Abandoned Shipwreck Act. Held that salvor was required to plead with particularity the shipwreck's precise location; but was not required to positively identify vessel before initiating action; and that it had an obligation to amend its complaint to the extent that it acquired additional information regarding the possible identity of the vessel.

Jan 18 2005: Lykes Lines Ltd v M/V BBC Sealand USCA 5 th Cir C.A.5 (Tex.), 2005
Contract to transport cargo via containers. Charterer did not pay freight - vessel owner seeks to enforce its lien (arising from the Charter). Also, cargo owner filed complaint in District Court against vessel, vessel owner, and charterer, alleging breach of contract, damage to the cargo, and conversion. Charter provided that only vessel owner could issue bills of lading, yet some were issued without authorization of ship owner. Bill of lading contained lien clause in favour of carrier. Vessel held to be bound by bills of lading issued by charterer; and vessel breached contract of carriage by failing to discharge cargo in designated port. Discussion of maritime liens - actual/constructive notice of lien.

12 Jan 2005: Stemcor USA v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd., USDC SDNY
Owner of goods sues the owner/charterer defendants, stevedores and storage company for damages arising from the alleged mishandling of cargo shipped aboard the vessel M/V Dimitra. Bill of lading – clause stipulating that Korean law is to govern the B/L. Discussion of forum selection clauses. Personal jurisdiction issue. Complaint dismissed due to forum selection clause and a lack of personal jurisdiction.

5 Jan 2005: Rational Software Corporation v Sterling Corporation USCA 1 st Cir CA 1 (Mass) 2005, 393 F.3d 276
Shipper who employed carrier to move items to and from facilities brought an action for damages to goods dropped by carrier's employees. Bill of lading containing the liability limitation was issued after the damage. However, the shipper had previously hired the carrier for over 200 jobs, receiving bills of lading which prominently displayed limitation clause. Therefore, the carrier limited its liability through its prior course of dealings with shipper.

2004

28 Dec 2004: Trans-Tec Asia v M/V Harmony Container, et al, Unreported in FSupp2d (CDCal) [2006 AMC 852]
CHOICE OF LAW AND FORUM – dispute over unpaid bunkers – plaintiff is a Singapore corporation which sold bunkers to a Taiwanese charterer of the Malaysian defendant vessel owner – maritime and maritime lien claims made against the defendant for unpaid bunkers – threshold question is which country's law governs the sale – more specifically, whether bunker sale confirmation, formed subsequent to the charter party, and containing a new choice of law was valid – courts in admiralty will enforce valid choice of law clauses in agreements, applying United States law to determine their validity – held, (1) the specification of a new choice of law was a material alteration of the offer and under the Uniform Commercial Code, such alterations do not become a part of the contract – even if it were valid, as a non-party to the agreement, the defendant vessel owner would not be bound by its terms (court applies five part test from Itel Containers Int'l Corp v Atlanttrafik Exp Serv Ltd, 2 Cir, 909 F2d 698, 701, 1900 AMC 1817, 1821, as to whether the vessel owner and charterer were joint venturers) - (2) where there is no valid choice of law clause, general maritime choice of law principles apply: based on seven factors test from Lauritzen v Larsen, 345 US 571, 1953 AMC 1210, application of Malaysian law would be appropriate.

22 Dec 2004: Gfroerer v Ace American Insurance Company, USDC WDNY
Power boat owner commenced action against insurance company seeking a declaratory judgment that they are obligated to pay plaintiff insurance proceeds. Insurance company claims that their denial of coverage was proper because plaintiff had breached an express warranty of the policy by allowing plaintiff's powerboat to be "operated by" someone other than himself at the time of the accident. Discussion of what is meant by "operated by," and of whether the policy is intended to cover "ocean going vessels." Plaintiff's claims for coverage denied.

13 Dec 2004: Tug Barbara E. Bouchard Corp v Amazonia MV, USCA 5 th Cir, C.A.5 (La.),2004, 117 Fed.Appx. 968
Owner of tug and barge flotilla dragged anchor and collided with another vessel Brought action against owner of other vessel. Strict liability theory not negligence theory imposed. Proximate cause of collision. Held that tug and barge flotilla operator failed to exercise due diligence and take corrective action to avoid other vessel. In extremis doctrine does not apply here.

10 Dec 2004: Energy Transport, Ltd. vM.vSan Sebastian USDC SDNY
(NB A lot about procedure, standing here as well) Arbitration, charter parties, narrow arbitration clause. The terms of a charter party, including an arbitration clause, may, by appropriate reference, be incorporated into a bill of lading. Whether claims against vessel owner for breach of contract and negligence were arbitrable under charter's arbitration provision.

08 Dec 2004: Chembulk Trading LLC v Chemex Ltd, USCA 5 th Cir, C.A.5 (La.),2004, 393 F.3d 550
Vessel owners disputed meaning of term "all freights" in time-charter party. Held that "all freights" could properly include "subfreights." The term "subfreight" had not become, by custom and usage, the only way to refer to compensation payable by a third party to a charterer. So, a lien on "all freights" held by owner of vessel provided it with a lien on subfreights carried by the second company. Discussion of maritime liens - when they arise, priority in relation to creditors, lien against third party. Discussion of interpretation of contracts governed by admiralty law.

07 Dec 2004: American Home Assurance Company vTGL Container Lines, Ltd., USDC ND California, 347 F.Supp.2d 749
Damage to shipment caused by fire on vessel. Subrogated insurers of shipper filed action against non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC) who arranged for the transport of goods. Ocean carrier was also defendant. NVOCC filed third-party complaint against vessel and ocean carrier. Ocean carrier moved to dismiss this complaint on basis of improper venue under forum selection clause in its bills of lading or, on the ground of forum non conveniens. Discussion of forum selection clauses – reasonableness of the clause . Discussion of forum non conveniens. Forum selection clause in bill of lading was valid and enforceable. NVOCC waived defence of improper venue in respect of the shipper's subrogee's complaint. However, subrogated insurer's complaint would be dismissed on ground of forum non conveniens.

02 Dec 2004: Timbauba Agricola S.A. vM/V Cap San Raphael, USDC ED Pennsylvania
Shippers (and exporters and/or importers of fruit) alleged that the common carriers were liable in contract and tort for the destruction of a shipment of a cargo of mangoes, which were carried by the common carrier defendants. Plaintiffs failed to identify bills of lading – complaint found to be insufficient, failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendants granted motion for summary judgment.

02 Dec 2004: Jefferson Insurance Company v Roberts, USDC D. Massachusetts, 349 F.Supp.2d 101
Insurer brought action seeking declaration that hull and machinery insurance policy did not cover damage to insured vessel's engines. What law governs insurance contract - absent controlling federal rule, statute, or precedent to the contrary, it is appropriate to look to state law in interpreting terms of marine insurance contract.

Under Massachusetts law, hull and machinery insurance policy excluded coverage for damages to insured vessel's engines, and broker was not insurer's agent.

02 Dec 2004: Security Insurance Company of Hartford v Old Dominion Freight Line Inc. USCA 2 nd Cir, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2004, 391 F.3d 77
Shipment of cigarettes stolen. Shipper's subrogee brought action under Carmack Amendment against carrier. Carriage of goods. Where contents of a shipment are not visible or open for inspection, a clean bill of lading is not sufficient to establish delivery of the goods in good condition. No summary judgment as a genuine issue of material fact as to quantity and quality of goods in shipment was found to exist.

30 Nov 2004: Ferrostaal, Inc. v M/V Sea Baisen, USDC SDNY
Goods damaged while transported pursuant to a contract of affreightment. Defendants move for summary judgment -arguing that claim is time-barred pursuant to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. Plaintiff was previously granted extensions by its agent. Need to show the agent was also acting as an agent for the shipowners when extension requests were granted, or that owners are estopped from denying the existence of such a relationship. Motion for summary judgment granted.

17 Nov 2004 : Royal Insurance Company of America d/b/a Royal & Sunalliance v Commercial Underwriters Insurance Company, USDC SDNY
Insurance coverage dispute. Both plaintiff and defendant insurance companies provide client with insurance, though under separate policies with differing coverage. Plaintiff insured client under two policies, a Hull Insurance Policy a Protection & Indemnity Insurance Policy. Defendant insured the client under a Commercial General Liability Policy. Spill in Louisiana, client was sued in Louisiana state court. Dispute over which carrier is obligated to cover the costs of defence for the client. Both the plaintiff's and defendant's motions for summary judgment were denied.

9 Nov 2004: Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v James N. Kirby, Pty. Ltd., No. 02-1028 United States Supreme Court: Opinion by Justice O'Connor: (not yet officially reported)
Admiralty jurisdiction: US Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936 ("COGSA"): Bills of Lading: Multimodal Bills of Lading: NVOCC: contracting carrier : accident during carriage by rail: Himalaya Clause.
In this important decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the United States Federal maritime law (that is, rather than state law) governs disputes arising under a multi-modal ocean bill of lading which includes a "substantial" maritime leg, irrespective of whether the carriage also includes a substantial over-land carriage and irrespective of the leg of the voyage on which the claimed damage occurred. The Court further held that claims arising under multi-modal ocean bills of lading are not "inherently local" such that state law should govern. Applying Federal maritime law, the Supreme Court concluded that defendant rail carrier was covered by Himalaya clauses contained in two multi-modal bills of lading issued in respect of the subject cargo and thus was entitled to the US Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936 ("COGSA")'s US$500 per package limitation of liability in respect of damage to a cargo of machinery which occurred as a result of a train derailment on the final leg of the delivery. In so doing, the Court held that, for the narrow purposes of accepting limitations of liabilities in the bill of lading, at least, the cargo interests were bound by the terms in the bill of lading of the actual carrier through the agency of the contracting carrier.

03 Nov 2004: Intermetals Corp v Bargelink LLC, USDC ED Louisiana
Goods damaged on vessel. Defendant found not to be a Carrier, a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier, or a Freight Forwarder holding itself out as performing carrier functions. Therefore it is not subject to the general restriction on waiver of liability for failure to provide/use due diligence to provide a seaworthy vessel under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. Motion for summary judgment granted.

12 Oct 2004 : Stemcor USA Inc v Atlantic Transport Association Ltd, USDC SDNY
Cargo owner alleges that ship owner breached the charter party by failing to provide it with a vessel suitable for the shipment of loose steel billets by the scheduled time. Default judgment entered. Assessment of damages for breach of charter party. Prejudgment interest granted from the date on which the charter party was breached.

01 Oct 2004: Ferrostaal, Inc. vM/V Tupungato, USDC SDNY [2004 AMC 2498]
Cargo owner seeks recovery for damage to cargo, from vessel owners and charterers. Two defendants file a third party complaint against the time charterer who in turn impleads the owner of the vessel. The vessel-owner moved to stay these claims on the ground that the charter party executed requires the parties to resolve all disputes through arbitration. Time charterer opposes arbitration on the ground that it may be deprived of its remedy against the vessel-owner if forced to arbitrate this dispute in London, because English courts have applied the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act in ways which may bar the time charterer's claims. Argument rejected and motion to stay is granted.

29 Sep 2004: Americas Insurance Company, et al v Stolt-Nielsen, Inc et al USDC SDNY [2004 AMC 2542]
Contract of affreightment. Bill of lading provided for freight to be earned "concurrent with loading" but further stated that freight was "payable as per charter party". Tanks were contaminated, sent back, reconditioned and redelivered. Advanced freight paid was recovered from the charterer for the first voyage never made. Freight at issue was not earned as goods were not delivered to their destination. Insurers recovered unearned freight as it was not a covered risk under the insurance policy. Antisubrogation rule does not apply here. Volunteer doctrine not a bar to recovery.

13 Sep 2004: Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation v An Ning Jiang MV et al, USCA 5 th Cir, [2004 AMC 2409]
Equipment damaged while being shipped from Spain to China. The bills of lading contained a paramount clause which referred to the Hague-Visby Rules and a US jurisdiction clause. Hague-Visby Rules govern the extent of liability for cargo damage rather than the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.

29 Aug 2004: Pemex-Refinacion v Tbilisi Shipping Co Ltd USDC SDNY [2004 AMC 2424]
Cargo was damaged while being discharged. Cargo was insured – insurer given a subrogation receipt. Insurer had reinsurance for 85% of the claim. Claim that the insurers and reinsurers were real party in interest – request for recommencement of arbitration on these grounds.

25 Aug 2004: PNC Bank Delaware v F/V Miss Laura et al USCA 3 rd Cir, [2004 AMC 2314]
Assuming a vessel's history may be the subject of a maritime lien, the lien does not transfer to a replacement vessel after the original vessel sinks. Liens have a vessel-specific character.

09 Aug 2004: Nippon Express USA (Illinois) Inc v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co Ltd, et al USDC ND Illinois (Eastern Division) [2004 AMC 2031]
Non-vessel owning common carrier contracted vessel owning common carrier to transport goods. One container's contents went missing. Bill of lading incorporated Carriage of Goods By Sea Act (COGSA). Whether Carriage of Goods By Sea Act definition of package applies - where bill of lading states the number of cartons in a container, an attempt to define the container as a package subject to the $500 limitation on liability is void.

04 Aug 2004: Sompo Japan Insurance Company of America v M/V Commander et al USDC ND Illinois (Eastern Division) [2004 AMC 2283]
Cargo damaged on a journey between Turkey and Chicago. Bills of lading signed by a time charterer's agent in Turkey naming a Maltese owner as the carrier are inadequate to establish specific jurisdiction of owner.

28 Jul 2004: Seabulk Offshore Limited v American Home Asurance Company et al USCA 4 th Cir [2004 AMC 1924]
Marine insurance. Additional insured endorsement, named insured endorsement. Insurer to cover claims against additional insured for personal injury at sea.

19 Jul 2004: American Home Assurance Company v Hapag Lloyd Container Linie. GMBH, et al, USDC SDNY [2004 AMC 1947]
Loss of cargo. Bill of lading indicating that goods will be transported from origin to destination through different carriers is nonetheless a through bill of lading. Jurisdiction, choice of law.

14 Jul 2004: Eimskip, et al v Mayflower Int'l Ltd, et al USDC D Massachusetts [2004 AMC 1904]
Action to recover unpaid freight charges. Bill of lading – presumption that shipper shown is the party responsible for paying freight. Where buyer of cargo orally booked shipment and orally agreed to pay the freight buyer is responsible and must indemnify the shipper of it pays.

09 Jul 2004: City of Chicago v M/V Morgan, et al, USCA, 7 th Cir [2004 AMC 1859]
Tugboat was pushing four barges on Calumet River in Chicago, winch brake failed causing a barge to collide with a bridge. Oregon rule (which creates a rebuttable presumption of fault against a moving vessel) held to apply. Vessel did not react to the mechanical failure in a reasonable manner, collision not the result of an inevitable accident or the sole fault of the stationary object, in extremis doctrine (agony of the moment defence) does not apply.

02 Jul 2004 : RMS Titanic Inc v Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel et al USDC ED Virginia (Norfolk Division) [2004 AMC 1817]
French official awarded artefacts recovered from the wreck of the Titanic to the salvor by issuing a Proces-Verbal was not recognised under the doctrine of comity in the US. Discussion of law of finds and law of salvage. Maritime lien – determining salvage awards.

21 Jun 2004: Deltak LLC v Industrial Maritime Carriers Worldwide
Cargo was damaged as a result of exposure to water. Allegations that owners of vessel knowingly furnished a ship with leaky hatches and failed to apply sealant tape. Even if there were evidence supporting this, it would perhaps support a finding of negligence, but not a finding of unreasonable deviation sufficient to defeat the package limitation of liability in the bill of lading. Discussion of what constitutes a "package". The attachment of steel bars and wooden bands to large pieces of machinery is not sufficient to convert them into packages. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.

18 Jun 2004: International Aircraft Recovery LLC v Unidentified, Wrecked and Abandoned Aircraft et al USCA 11 th Cir [2004 AMC 1724]
Navy wreck located. Letter sent from a US Navy Captain to a potential salvor saying that his office would recommend taking appropriate action to prevent an unauthorized taking, was an effective rejection of salvage services. Therefore salvor receives no award for services undertaken after the letter.

18 Jun 2004: John F Dillon & Co LLC v Foremost Maritime Corporation et al USDC SDNY [2004 AMC 1677]
Charter party agreement. Agents and brokers. Where party listed as "Managing Agents to Owners of the vessel described below"- the party is an agent for a disclosed principal. Brokers commissions on charters. Broker not entitled to commission on a charter after termination by mutual agreement or unilateral breach.

16 Jun 2004: Royal Insurance Company of America v M/V MSC Dymphna, et al, USDC SDNY [2004 AMC 1548]
Court affirms its prior decision that a particular bill of lading ambiguously defines "cartons" as the relevant package(s) for the purpose of insurance and the $500 per package limitation of liability. Court denies plaintiff's motion that appellate court, prior to final judgment in matter, determine the issue of fact, namely, what constitutes "cartons".

14 Jun 2004: American Home Assurance Company v Fore River Dock & Dredge, Inc., et al USDC D Massachusetts [2004 AMC 2455]
Tugboat and barge grounded. Marine insurance. Whether the damage fell into the exceptions contained in the insurance policy. Protection and Indemnity policy. Equipment on barge which has more than a temporary attachment is not "cargo" for the purpose of coverage. Lessee considered "owner" of the vessels under the policy. Debris removal is part of wreck removal and therefore covered under the policy. Breach of warranty does not defeat a claim for wreck removal unless insurer can prove the breach increased the risk of losses.

10 Jun 2004: Best Cheese Corporation v All-Ways Forwarding Int'l Inc et al NY, SC [2004 AMC 1763]
Cheese being shipped was delivered to the wrong port and arrived damaged. Bill of lading contained forum selection clause. Hamburg Rules.

03 Jun 2004: Lloyd Victor Ramirez v Matt Butler, et al USDC NDCal, [2004 AMC 2203]
Claim of sailboat owner against marina for trespassing on his boat and converting and selling it. Discussion of whether incident has a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce. No admiralty jurisdiction found.

02 Jun & 13 Jul 2004: Triton Container International Limited et al v Kien Hung Shipping Co Ltd et al USDC CDCal [2004 AMC 1568]
Ocean cargo containers leased for maritime transport. Maritime liens. Foreign liens, arrest laws.

25 May 2004: Stephen Gross v Tonomo Marine Inc USDC WD Pennsylvania [2004 AMC 1358]
Worker unloading a barge by a crane was injured. Admiralty jurisdiction found to exist under the admiralty Extension Act. Locality test, connection test (disruptive impact and substantial relationship).

14 May 2004: DCI Management Group Inc., et al v MV Miden Agan, et al USDC SDNY [2004 AMC 1294]
Cargo was carried in temperatures above what was required. Insurance claim submitted. Application of the $500 per package limitation in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act – what constitutes the package, when bill of lading is ambiguous. Pallets were deemed to be the packages as each pallet was wrapped in plastic and shipper's CFO only mentioned the number of pallets in the fax. Visby Amendments to Hague Rules not applicable as have been signed but not ratified by the US.

07 May 2004: Allianz CP General Insurance Company Ltd v Blue Anchor Line, et al USDC SDNY [2004 AMC 1266]
Power turbine motor transported between Ohio and Thailand was damaged. Whether the governing bill of lading relieved the potential liability of inland US trucker to shipper or subrogee. When there is a "through bill of lading", as opposed to a separate bill of lading for the inland leg of the journey, Carmack amendment is inapplicable. Cargo damage claim against an inland carrier (carrying cargo under a through bill of lading) is governed by that bill of lading, not one issued by the inland carrier.

07 May 2004: Ferro Union, Inc v M/V Tamamonta et al, USDC SDNY [2004 AMC 1258]
Steel pipes arrived to destination, some with rust damage. Pipes were resold. An insurance payout without more, is not a suitable substitute for the ordinary market value rule as a measure of loss.

05 May & 07 Jun 2004: Stemcor USA Inc v M/V Archimedes et al USDC SDNY, [2004 AMC 1651]
Voyage charter party provided for the carriage of a cargo of wire rod. Paramount clause – contract was governed by the Hague-Visby Rules. Although voyage charter required the charterer to load and unload the vessel, Hague-Visby rules makes this duty non-delegable by the owner, therefore owner not excused from bad stowage and handling.

05 May 2004: Delphi-Delco Electronics Systems, et al v M/V Nedlloyd Europa, et al USDC SDNY [2004 AMC 1217]
Automotive parts shipped on a non-vessel operating common carrier. Alleged that carriers delivered the shipments without producing bills of lading. Discussion of what constitutes a deviation and "false" bills of lading. Himalaya clause. Whether carriers can limit their liability to $500 per package – shipper placed a value in the "description of commodities" portion of B/L, not in place designated for declaration of value.

23 Apr 2004: Thysse, Inc. v M/V Nobility, et al, USDC ED Louisiana [2004 AMC 1419]
Shipment of steel coils damaged. Bills of lading incorporated all terms of the charter. B/L provided that cargo was free in stowed out and consignee hired the stevedore to discharge the cargo - the carrier is not liable for physical damage to the steel coils. Held to be private not common carriage therefore the US Carriage of Goods by Sea Act does not apply as a matter of law.

23 Apr 2004: Triton Container International Limited et al v Kien Hung Shipping Co Ltd et al USDC CDCal [2004 AMC 1566]
Container leases are maritime contracts and therefore the federal court has maritime jurisdiction.

19 Apr 2004: Progressive Northern Insurance Company v Fred Bachmann USDC WD Wisconsin [2004 AMC 1745]
Marine insurance. Owner misrepresented horse power of recreational boat to insurer. The federal admiralty rule uberimmae fidei does not apply to insurance for a recreational boat. State insurance law held to apply.

16 Apr 2004: Marquette Transportation Company Inc., et al v Louisiana Machinery Company Inc., et al USCA 5 th Cir [2004 AMC 1156]
Negligence – fire on vessel. Indemnification clause – required each party to hold the other harmless for suits for loss of damage to property owned. Reconciling insurance and indemnity provisions. In this case, indemnity provision was not affected by the requirement to maintain specified insurance coverages.

15 Apr 2004: Schramm, Incorporated, et al v Shipco Transport, Incorporated, in personam, et al. USCA, 4 th Cir, [2004 AMC 961]
Carriage of Good by Sea Act (COGSA). Rig being transported, damaged occurred during offload in the middle of the journey. Whether liability limited under COGSA. Bill of lading. COGSA covers time period from loading of goods to discharge. Discussion of the meaning of "discharge". Effect of clause paramount.

14 Apr 2004: Steven Henry Adams, et al v Unione Mediterranea di Sicurta, et al USCA 5 th Cir, [2004 AMC 1170]
2 barges sank and 158 slabs of steel were lost. Jurisdiction. Marine insurance. Forum selection clause. First insurer not bound by forum selection clause in a contract between the second insurer and the insured. Double insurance. One policy incorporated a provision from the Italian Civil Code, providing for a right to recourse against other insurers for "a proportional contribution based on the indemnities owed in accordance with their respective contracts. " Discussion of doctrine of equal subrogation.

9 Apr 2004: Nova Information Systems, Inc. v Greenwich Insurance Company, et al. USCA, 11th Cir, [2004 AMC 969]
Passengers pre-paid for cruise by credit card. Company in financial troubles, cruise did not take place. A credit card processor paid for it – it was not held to be a third-party beneficiary of a surety bond contract. Promissory or equitable estoppel – may expand parties covered by a surety bond only if oral representations or promises interpret ambiguous contract terms.

09 Apr 2004: Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., et al v Nippon Express USA (Illinois) Inc., et al., USDC SDNY, [2004 AMC 1126]
Cargo transported by ship and railway was lost. Himalaya clause and clause limiting liability in bill of lading. Whether carrier had benefit of a limit contained in the rail carrier's circular.

08 Apr 2004: Maersk-Sealand v Eurocargo Express, LLC, et al. USDC CD California (Western Division) [2004 AMC 1098]
Containers shipped on ocean common carrier's vessels. Carrier was not paid certain charges – as a result asserted a "general lien" (pursuant to a clause in the bill of lading) on the containers it was transporting. Charges and validity of lien were disputed, nonetheless delivery was delayed, leading to a loss of business and profits for the defendant. Whether general lien provision enforceable and valid.

06 Apr 2004: Royal Insurance Company of America v BHRS LLC USDC SD Florida [2004 AMC 1192]
Salvage operation. When asked about money the salvor said that the insurance company would pay. Owner was given a document, signed it without reading. Document was a "no cure pay" agreement, including an arbitration clause. Owner bound by document.

29 Mar 2004: Exter Shipping Limited et al v Stamatios I Kilakos,
Vessels chartered to company which became insolvent. Third party secured arrest of plaintiff's vessel. Plaintiffs allege that defendant made fraudulent representations as to the charterer's solvency. Discussion of jurisdiction – subject matter, maritime contract, maritime tort, supplemental. Court declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds of forum non conveniens.

25 Mar 2004: Dorens & De Waal B v Zim Israel Navigation Company, et al. USDC NDIll, [2004 AMC 859]
Cargo damaged. Bill of lading contained clauses limiting liability. Construction.

24 Mar 2004: Ferrostaal, Inc. v M/V Cerinthus, et al . USDC ED Louisiana [2004 AMC 1134]
Steel coils damaged. Bill of lading incorporated the mate's receipt which noted denting –this was accepted by the court as reflecting the condition of the cargo at the time of loading. Therefore plaintiff required to show how carrier's breach of duty caused the damage, as the burden of proof did not shift to carrier (under Carriage of Goods by Sea Act).

18 Mar 2004: Union Carbide Corporation v M/T Encounter, et al USDC SDNY [2004 AMC 815]
Cargo of liquid ethylene glycol arrived contaminated in Indonesia. Whether carrier liable for costs incurred in transporting the cargo to Japan for sale as anti-freeze. Shipper sold cargo FOB - whether shipper is real party in interest to sue carrier for cargo damage.

17 Mar 2004: Julianne Woodyer v United States of America USDC WD
Protestor operated high-speed boat contrary to law in an exclusionary zone, with the purpose of interfering with whale hunters. Violated crossing and other rules – then collided with a cost guard vessel. Protestor not able to recover for injuries.

03 Mar 2004: Times Media Private Limited v Ville de Mimosa, et al, . USDC C.D.California, [2004 AMC 700]
Alleged damage to goods. Whether there is admiralty jurisdiction – location test, connection test.

27 Feb 2004: Royal Insurance Company of America v M/V MSC Dymphna - USDC SDNY (2004 AMC 785)
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). Failure to deliver 2880 cartons of pharmaceuticals "packed on 40 pallets". Bill of lading - ambiguous as to what unit of shipment qualifies as a COGSA package. Extrinsic evidence used. Package limitation US COGSA - discussion of US cases.

25 Feb 2004: Continental Florida Materials, Inc. v M/V Lamazon , et al. USDC S.D.Florida. [2004 AMC 612]
Damaged cargo. Voyage charter party with arbitration clause. Whether bill of lading incorporates the arbitration clause from the voyage charter party.

23 Feb 2004: Kristensons-Petroleum, Inc. v Sealock Tanker Co., Ltd et al. USDC, SDNY [2004 AMC 1184]
Contracts for sale of marine fuel oil – failure to pay. Contract governed by laws of New York. Belgian court authorized arrest of ship. Whether SDNY has subject matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction.

18 Feb 2004: Dutie L Blair, et al v Suard Barge Services, Inc., et al. USDC ED Louisiana [2004 AMC 1144]
Man was operating a boat in a canal, struck two moored barges and died. The barges had general marine liability insurance and indemnity coverage. Whether watercraft exclusion clause bars recovery in the circumstances of the barge being moored offshore of the insured's premises. Discussion of a hull policy, protection and indemnity policy, marine general liability policy and comprehensive general liability policy.

18 Feb 2004: Mitsui Marine & Fire Insurance Co Ltd v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd –Georgia, State Court of Chatham County (2004 AMC 577)
Packages of yarn transported by ocean and land. Yarn allegedly damaged during rail transport. Ocean and land transport governed by 2 separate bills of lading. Discussion of principles which can govern rights of a cargo owner against a vessel owner/operator and stevedores and inland carriers. Carriage of Goods By Sea Act. What law controls bill of lading.
NVOCC's bill issued to shipper – ocean bill to NVOCC held to have been issued to NVOCC in its own right and not as agent of shipper – court applied the discussion of the relationship between shipper, NVOCC and carrier in James N Kirby Pty Ltd v Norfolk Southern R Co 300 F.3d (11 CCA 2002), 2002 AMC 213. Thus shipper was not bound by limitations in the ocean bill. But compare Barbara Lloyd Designs Inc v Mitsui OSK Lines 2003 AMC 2608 where a N Dakota District Court found the shipper bound by the ocean carrier's bill through the agency of the NVOCC or freight forwarder.

17 Feb 2004: Oliver Arch v Treasure Chest Casino, LLC USDC ED Louisiana [2004 AMC 1303]
Injury of crewman on permanently moored boat. Discussion of factors that give rise to admiralty jurisdiction.

11 Feb 2004: Thrustmaster of Texas, Inc v The United States, US Court of Federal Claims, [2004 AMC 1000]
A contract to supply bow thrusters for the sole purpose of improving and servicing vessels is wholly maritime in nature. Therefore it is subject to admiralty jurisdiction.

10 Feb 2004: Firemans Fund McGee Marine Underwriters v M/V Caroline – USDC SDNY (2004 AMC) 430
Charterparty – execution by agent "on behalf of the owner" – owner a party, not signing agent – "owner of the vessel" is an adequate disclosure of the principal – the test being the identity or existence of the principal: Getty Oil Co v Norse Mgmt Co (Pte) Ltd 711 F. Supp 175,177 (SDNY 2/6/93) followed.

05 Feb 2004: Altadis USA, Inc. v NPR, Inc., et al, USDC MD Florida [2004 AMC 1080]
Bill of lading which involved substantial land transportation. Jurisdiction – a contract must be wholly maritime to provide admiralty jurisdiction, or the non-maritime elements must be insubstantial or separable.

04 Feb 2004: Union Steel Corporation v M/V Koningsborg, et al, USDC, SDNY [2004 AMC 438]
Bill of lading. Charter – whether arbitration clause to be interpreted as permissive or mandatory.

04 Feb 2004: Usinor Steel Corp. vM/V Koningsborg United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: District Judge: Alvin K. Hellerstein.:No. 03 Civ4301; 2004 US Dist. LEXIS 1615
Arbitration: charter party: arbitration clause: Whether mandatory or permissive: federal policy: final order.
In this case, the court granted defendant shipowner's motion to stay an action in favor of arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause which provided that "arbitration, if any, to be settled in Paris…." The shipowner contended that the clause required mandatory arbitration, but the cargo owner argued that the clause only required foreign arbitration if the parties agreed to arbitrate a dispute. The court held that, in view of federal policy in favor of arbitration, the arbitration clause was mandatory rather than permissive.

07 Jan 2004: Salty Dawg Marina Inc v The M/Y Eastern Star, et al BOAT/US, Salvage Arbitration, New York, [2004 AMC 497]
Salvage operation. Definition of an act of salvage.

06 Jan 2004: The Carney Family Investment Trust et al v Insurance Company of North America, USDC for the District of Maryland [2004 AMC 405]
Marine insurance. Whether state law or federal admiralty law should apply law should apply to a claim against a marine insurer for unfair claims settlement practice in relation to fire damage to a yacht.

2003

31 Dec 2003: United States of America v Geovanni Quintero Rendon USCA, 11 th Circ, [2004 AMC 591]
Vessel intercepted in international waters with no flag, no registration documentation or identifying markings. Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) - vessel without nationality. Whether subject to US jurisdiction under the (MDLEA).

24 Dec 2003: Continental Insurance Company v M/V Orsula et al USCA , 7 th Circ, [2004 AMC 172]
Damage to goods during voyage. Recovery of damages. Bills of lading. Jurisdiction, forum-selection clause.

23 Dec 2003: American Home Assurance Co v Zim Jamaica – USDC SDNY (2004 AMC 393)
Cargo Claim – clean bill – container – wet cargo on delivery – wetting by fresh water – summary judgment for plaintiff denied – genuine issue of fact to be tried.

23 Dec 2003: Bowman Import/Export Ltd v B&P International, et al, New York SC, [2004 AMC 689]
Marine insurance. Financial backer of ship named as insured on cargo policy by broker. Financier sues broker for negligence in not securing adequate protection. Motion for summary judgment.

19 Dec 2003: Thomas H. Collins v National Transportation Safety Board, et al USCA, District of Columbia Circuit, [2004 AMC 153]
Two ships collided in the Miami Harbour Channel. Initially agreed to pass each other starboard - to - starboard. One ship decided to pass port-to-port instead. Whether Coast Guard's interpretation of COLREGS Rule 34(d) to be given deference to.

19 Dec 2003: Collins v National Transportation Safety Board – US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (2004 AMC 153)
Collision – Colregs and inland rules – rule 34(d) warning signals.

18 Dec 2003: The National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia v Diversified Freight Logistics, Inc. USDC, SDNY, [2004 AMC 188]
Affreightment. Whether valid oral contract. Dead freight damages. Who is to pay freight. Agents and Brokers. Undisclosed principal. Status of freight forwarder.

11 Dec 2003: In re Millenium Seacarriers Inc – USDC SDNY (2004 AMC 538)
No bailment of bunkers sold on credit.

09 Dec 2003: Moore v MV Angela United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: No. 02-30441: 2003 US App. LEXIS 24736; Circuit Judges: Duhe, Garza and DeMoss with Garza concurring in part and dissenting in part
Maritime: longshoreman: in rem jurisdiction: non-pecuniary damages: security: letter of undertaking : Fifth Circuit affirms vessel's liability in rem under Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act but finds award of non-pecuniary damages excessive and that district court exceeded its authority by granting plaintiff post-judgment increase in security posted in lieu of the vessel.

08 Dec 2003: Joseph Todd et al v Paul J Schneider USDC, District of South Carolina (Charleston Division) [2004 AMC 409]
Boating collision on a lake. General maritime law. The Pennsylvania Rule. The Inland Navigation Rules. Wrong side of channel, proper look out, safe speed, appropriate steps/action to avoid the collision, narrow channel rule, head-on situation. Liability.

08 Dec 2003: Todd v Schneider USDC S Carolina (2004 AMC 409)
Collision – rules 7 and 8: action to avoid collision; rule 34(e): bend signals; rule 15: obligations of starboard hand vessel; rule 9: keeping to starboard; rule 6: safe speed; rule 5: lookout; rule 2(a) general precautionary rule, good seamanship and common sense; rule 15: crossing.

26 Nov 2003: Thames Shipyard and Repair Company v United States et al, USCA 1 st Cir, [2004 AMC 112]
Sinking vessel. Salvage. Authority of Coast Guard to issue evacuation order. Search and rescue powers. Liability of the Government for negligence, question of immunity.

24 Nov 2003: BP West Coast Products, LLC v Alaska Tanker Co., LLC, et al, USDC, Western district of Washington (Seattle) [2004 AMC 108]
Tanker operated by Alaska Tanker discharged crude oil at a terminal. Accident damaged the terminal, could not receive oil for a few days as a result. 2 ships chartered by affiliates of BP West Coast from Alaska Tanker were scheduled to discharge their cargos of crude oil. BP seeks to recover the excess demurrage charges arising from the incident.

13 Nov 2003: Marine Office of America Corp., et al v Lilac Marine Corporation, et al. USDC D.P.R, no, [2004 AMC 670]
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. Cargo arrived damaged by rust. Carrier's liability – need to establish that goods were damaged while in the custody of the carrier. Bill of Lading – proof that carrier received goods. Duty to provide a seaworthy vessel.

9 Nov 2003: Liverpool and London Steamship Protection & Indemnity Association Limited v M/V ABRA (ex Kappa Unity), In Rem, USDC MDLa [2004 AMC 1025]
Mutual insurance association – members made contributions (calls). A member was unable to continue paying calls. Ship arrested. Whether maritime liens exists on individual vessels in a member's fleet (where the member earmarked individual coverage but was billed in full). Whether the insurance association possessed a maritime lien against a vessel, for the total amount of unpaid calls of the other vessels in the member's fleet. Discussion of maritime liens, necessaries liens and maritime contract liens.

04 & 18 Nov 2003: Sompo Japan Insurance of America v Union Pacific Railroad
Cargo from Japan to Georgia, damaged on a train in the US. Bills of lading covered entire shipment from Tokyo to Georgia. Construction of bills of lading that purport to extend the protection of the Carriage of Goods Sea Act's typical period of applicability.

08 Oct 2003: Otto Candies LLC v Nippon Kaiji Kyokai Corporation– US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (2003 AMC 2409)
Classification Society liability – discussion of liability – though their liability was to be strictly and carefully limited for reasons of policy, a society may be liable for negligent misrepresentation.

02 Oct 2003: Bulholm Fisheries Inc., in re USDC, Western District of Washington (Seattle) [2004 AMC 243]
Bankruptcy. Interest on maritime lien claim.

30 Sep 2003: Macsteel International USA Corp v M/V Jag Rani – USDC SDNY (2004 AMC 220)
Charterparty and bills of lading – incorporation of charterparty arbitration clause into the bill – CONGENBILL – stated to be used with charterparties – the particular charterparty ambiguously referred to on the face of the bill – discovery permitted as to knowledge of shipper – discussion of US law of incorporation of charterparty terms into bills: where the bill "specifically refers to a charterparty" and incorporates the terms of the charter in "unmistakeable language": Import Export Steel Corp v Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co 351 F 2d 503 (2 CCA 1905), 1966 AMC 237, 240.

24 Sep 2003: Hygrade Operators Inc v The Tug Takchee, USDC D of New Jersey (2003 AMC 2802)
Collision – tug with tow in fog – positive and timely action; safe speed; keeping to starboard; position on vessel

22 Sep 2003: Astra Oil Company, Inc. vRover Navigation, Ltd.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Jacobs and Sotomayor, Judges: No. 02-9388: 2003 US App. LEXIS 19670 (2d Cir. Sep 2003) (not yet officially reported)
Shipping: Charter party: Arbitration: When May A Non-Party Compel Arbitration?
In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a decision from the District Court for the Southern District of New York in which it had denied appellant Astra Oil Company, Inc.'s ("Astra") petition to compel Rover Navigation, Ltd. ("Rover") to arbitrate Astra's claims arising out of the late delivery by Rover of Astra's cargo. Even though Astra was not a signatory to the charter party which contained the arbitration clause, the Second Circuit held that the petition should have been granted because Astra's claims were premised on alleged breaches of duties under the charter, that is, that Rover breached warranties of speed and seaworthiness, and thus were inextricably intertwined with that agreement. Moreover, the Court held, the relationship between Astra and the actual signatory to the charter was sufficiently close, and Rover had treated Astra and the actual signatory sufficiently interchangeably, that Rover should be estopped from resisting arbitration.

1 Jul 2003: Sander v Alexander Richardson Investments
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit: 334 F.3d 712: Judges Hansen, Riley, and Chief Judge Beam
Admiralty: Exculpatory Clauses: Negligence: Yacht Club: Slip Agreement: Whether Exculpatory Provision In Slip Rental Agreement Enforceable
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, reversing a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, held that the defendant yacht club was not liable to various plaintiff boat owners in negligence for a fire which had destroyed the plaintiffs' boats. The decision was founded on an exculpatory clause in the slip rental agreement which purported to exonerate the yacht club from liability for "any and all" damage to plaintiffs' property.

28 Jun 2003: Energy Transport Ltd v MV San Sebastian – USDC SDNY (2003 AMC 2829)
Lien on Freight – subcharterer paid freight directly to owner's agent for transmittal to owner – freight thereby ceased to be indistinguishable from the ship and could not be seized in rem and fell outside the claimant's maritime lien.

27 Jun 2003: Mullane v Chambers (The "Lady B Gone")
US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: 333 F.3rd 322, 2003 US App. LEXIS 13032: Cyr and Stahl, Senior Circuit Judges, Lynch, Circuit Judge
In this case, the Owner of a US flag yacht lost his vessel to a judgment creditor of the seller as a result of failing to record promptly his bill of sale. The court held a judgment creditor of a seller of a vessel is entitled to levy execution upon the vessel prior to the buyer's filing the bill of sale, as long as the creditor does not have actual knowledge of the sale.

24 Jun 2003: Duferco International Steel Trading v T. Klaveness Shipping A/S United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Judges Feinberg, Cardamone, and Sack: 333 F.3d 383
Time charter: voyage charter: safe-berth warranty: indemnity Arbitration: Manifest disregard of the law: arbitration award: vacatur/set aside: vouching-in: collateral estoppel: plausible reading of the award: whether should also be 'probable'
In this case, the Second Circuit affirmed a district court's decision refusing to vacate (set aside) an arbitration award for manifest disregard of the law after finding a plausible reading of the award which resolved an apparent contradiction. The Petitioner, Duferco, argued that the arbitrators had acted in manifest disregard of the law when they rendered an award concerning Respondent's, Klaveness', indemnification claim for damages and attorney's fees and costs incurred in a prior London arbitration. After an extensive review of the law on manifest disregard of the law and the award, the appellate court agreed with the "plausible reading" of the award advanced by the district court and affirmed its decision. In so affirming, the Second Circuit concluded that it was of no consequence that this plausible reasoning was not necessarily one which was advanced in the arbitration or readily apparent in the award.

07 May 2003: Jefferson Insurance Company of New York v Michael Cassella, et al, USDC, EDNY, [2004 AMC 163]
Marine insurance. Collision at Freeport Creek. Which law controls insurance policy. Whether a vessel is an "ocean going vessel". Status of endorsement.

2 May 2003: Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd United States: New York City Civil Court: Eileen A. Rakower, Judge; 763 N.Y.S.2d 427, 196 Misc. 2d 11 (N.Y. CivCt. 2003)
US CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT 1936 ("COGSA"): unreasonable deviation: misplaced cargo: lost cargo: negligent misrepresentation.
The New York City Civil Court granted summary judgment against an insurance company pursuing a subrogated claim against a container line. The insurer sought damages for the line's misplacement of a New York-bound shipment of doors and windows from Germany. The shipping company had represented to the cargo owner that its shipment could not be located and had been apparently stolen, but it later located the cargo and delivered the shipment in good condition. The court ruled the carrier's failure to unload the container at New York and its on-carriage of the container to Japan and back was not an unreasonable deviation because the carrier's actions were not undertaken voluntarily. The court rejected the insurer's claim for negligent misrepresentation on the ground that the shipping company owed the cargo owner no duties except those created by and arising out of the shipping contract, a bill of lading. Moreover, the court found that the alleged negligent misrepresentation was not a misrepresentation in the first instance because the shipping company had never definitely advised the cargo owner that its container had been "stolen."

10 Apr 2003: Chisso America Inc v M/V Hanjin Osaka B, USDC D of New Jersey (2003 AMC 2796)
Himalaya clause enforced – owner and demise charterer could take advantage of the forum selection clause in a sea waybill issued by a slot charterer in its combined transport bill of lading.

4 Apr 2003: AT&T Corp, et al v Tyco Telecommunications (US) Inc USDC SDNY [2004 AMC 1964]
Submarine cable damaged by ship. There is no clear law that the International Convention for the Protection of Submarine Cables does not allow a private cause of action.

31 Mar 2003: Tetuan Shipping Corp v M/V Tug Ann Moran, et al, 65 FedAppx 715 (Table) (11th Cir) [2006 AMC 1210 (LTD)]
DAMAGES – ship owner sues tug boat after the ship ran aground during turning maneuver – tug boat argues ship owner's damages should be limited to the amount un-reimbursed by the insurer – while under the doctrine of equitable subrogation a marine insurer's recovery is limited to the amount paid under the policy, there is no such limitation on the insured against the tortfeaser – in addition, under the collateral source rule, payments made by the insurer cannot reduce the liability of the tortfeaser - held, ship owner need not bring suit only for un-reimbursed loss but can sue tug boat for the entire loss – insured's recovery is then impressed with a trust for the insurer.

26 Mar 2004: Assicuraziono Geberali S.P.A., et al v Black & Veatch Corporation, et al, USCA 8 th Cir. [2004 AMC 773]
Marine insurance. Open policy. Warranty clause referred to "items listed below" or on a separate schedule – yet no items were listed. Whether wording ambiguous. Policy endorsement issued after loss. Consideration needed for it to be effective. "Dury of the Assured" clause to minimise loss.

21 Mar 2003: Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., et al v M/V Saffron Trader, et al . , USDC SDNY, [2004 AMC 1093]
Action to recover damages for cargo shipped form US to Japan. Charter party contained an arbitration clause (to be in New York). Whether arbitration agreement had been waived. Whether claim time-barred under Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.

21 Mar 2003: Glyphics Media, Inc. vM.vConti Singapore, and others
United States District Court, Southern District of New York: Hon. Naomi Reice Buchwald: Docket No. 02 Civ 4398 (NRB)
Bill of Lading: forum selection clause: carrier: agency.
The District Court granted a motion to dismiss a suit against a foreign vessel operating common carrier and its United States agent on the basis of a forum selection clause in the carrier's bill of lading calling for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Indian courts.

19 Mar 2003: Assuranceforeningen Skuld (Gjensidig), et al v Apollo Ship Chandlers, Inc., et al. Florida, District CA, 3 rd District, [2004 AMC 765]
Marine insurance. Whether an insurer is entitled to arbitrate a claim abroad in accordance with the insurance policy, in light of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

Freret Marine Supply v Harris Trust & Savings Bank: 73 Fed. Appx. 698 (5th Cir. 2003): Circuit Judges: Garza, Dennis and Head Effjohn Int'l Cruise Holdings, InvvA&L Sales, Inc.: 346 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 2003): Circuit Judges: Smith, Barksdale and Duplantier
Maritime lien: necessaries: advances. In two related cases, Freret Marine Supply v Harris Trust & Savings Bank and Effjohn Int'l Cruise Holdings, Inc. vA&L Sales, Inc., the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that neither a credit agreement between a cruise vessel operator ("Commodore") and a guarantee company ("Guarantor"), nor a surety bond which applied to Commodore's vessels, gave rise to a maritime lien. The Court further held in Freret that a Guarantor was not entitled to a maritime lien because it did not provide "necessaries" for the vessels and did not provide an "advance" to the vessel for the purpose of purchasing necessaries.

Top

Admiralty & Maritime Cases - United States

Admiralty & Maritime Cases - United States

Listing by year

2019

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012