Email to a friend

Personal Injury Law

The estate of a decedent was limited to recovery of only pecuniary losses as a matter of law against the manufacturer of a vessel that sank, killing the decedent, because the estate expressly premised its claim on 46 U.S.C.S. § 30104(a) as the decedent w

By Lipcon, Margulies & Alsina, P.A. (all)

In the Matter of the Complaint of COZY COVE MARINA, INC., as Owner of a 35' CAROLINA CLASSIC MOTOR VESSEL, HULL ID NO. CAR3509A506, FOR Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, EASTERN DIVISION
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81948
November 5, 2007, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE Plaintiff, a marina, filed a maritime-law action to limit its liability to the value of a sunken vessel which killed two decedents. Defendants, decedents' estates, filed claims against the marina. The marina filed an indemnity/contribution claim against third-party defendant, the vessel manufacturer. The manufacturer moved for partial summary judgment against both estates, to limit their recovery to pecuniary losses, and filed a motion in limine.

OVERVIEW: The manufacturer claimed that recovery by the estates was limited to pecuniary losses because they had not pleaded any state-law claims, and general federal maritime law limited recovery to pecuniary losses. The court initially held that the manufacturer's motion was only ripe as to second estate because the provisions of federal maritime law limiting recovery to pecuniary losses did not apply to the first estate's claim. The court then held that the second estate was limited to recovery of only pecuniary losses because the second estate expressly premised its claim on 46 U.S.C.S. § 30104(a), as the decedent was a seaman employed by the marina as a crew member aboard the vessel when it sank, and the second estate filed nothing in opposition to the manufacturer's motion for partial summary judgment. The court further held that the U.S. Coast Guard accident report of the incident involving the vessel would be excluded as evidence because 46 U.S.C.S. § 6308(a) precluded the use of U.S. Coast Guard accident reports in private civil litigation.

OUTCOME: The manufacturer's motion for partial summary judgment concerning the second estate was granted. The manufacturer's motion in limine to exclude the U.S. Coast Guard accident report was granted.

Full post as published by Cruise Ship Law on November 01, 2007 (boomark / email).