Earlier this year, the U.S. Fifth Circuit authored an opinion in Meche v. Doucet, 777 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. Jan. 22, 2015) that touched on important issues related to the McCorpen defense against a seaman’s claim for maintenance and cure. See McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp., 396 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1968).
An offshore helicopter crash resulted in four lawsuits filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana that were eventually consolidated for all purposes. Three of the four plaintiffs properly asserted that their cases fell under admiralty jurisdiction and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h). FRCP 9 governs the pleading of special matters, and subsection (h) addresses
In Alfred v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation et al., No. 13-211, 2014 WL 6633105 (M.D. La. November 21, 2014), newly-minted Judge John W. DeGravelles re-affirmed the spirit of Romero v. Mobil Exploration, 939 F.2d 307, 311 (5th Cir. 1991), holding that the reinvented SEMS II rules (Safety and Environmental Management Systems) found in the
Naquin v. Elevating Boats, L.L.C., — F.3d —, 2014 WL 917053, No. 12-31258 (5th Cir. Mar. 10, 2014)
(Davis and Milazzo, J.; Jones, J. dissenting)
In a decision that will undoubtedly have a lasting impact on marine insurers and their shipyard insureds, a divided panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit held that a vessel
In its most recent decision regarding Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) coverage, namely New Orleans Depot Services, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 718 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals defined “adjoining” as used in the LHWCA to mean “bordering on
In Chenevert v. Travelers Indemnity Co., No. 13-60119 (5th Cir. March 7, 2014), the Fifth Circuit formally recognized that an insurer providing and making voluntary payments to an injured employee under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq (“LHWCA”), specifically 905(b), is entitled to a subrogation lien against the
In a recent decision, the Eleventh Circuit in Skye v. Maersk Line Limited, Corp., 751 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014), reversed a district court ruling awarding damages to a Jones Act seaman for injuries stemming from “excessive work hours and an erratic sleep schedule.” The Court’s decision in Skye reaffirms a now decades old
Going back to 1943, the Supreme Court in De Zon v. Am. President Lines, Ltd., 318 U.S. 660, 669 (1943), ruled that a shipowner could be liable to a Jones Act seaman for harm suffered as the result of any negligence on the part of the ship’s doctor while treating the seaman. The U.S.
A. Introduction to Punitive Damages
Pecuniary damages are awards designed to restore “material loss which is susceptible of pecuniary valuation.” Michigan Central Railroad. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U.S. 59, 71, 33 S.Ct. 192, 57, L.Ed. 417 (1913). Punitive or exemplary damages do not compensate for a loss; instead, they are imposed to punish the
It took one of the newly-minted judges on the Eastern District bench to finally adopt a working definition for the types of “perils of the sea” that Jones Act seaman are exposed to when analyzing the second prong of the Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 346 (1995) test. That test requires the plaintiff, claiming to be a Jones Act seaman, to “demonstrate a connection to a vessel in navigation (or to an identifiable group of such vessels) that is substantial in terms of both its duration and its nature.” Id. at 368. The two prongs of Chandris are: (1) the plaintiff must show that his duties contribute to the function of the vessel or the accomplishment of its mission, and (2) the plaintiff must demonstrate a connection to a vessel (or an identifiable group of vessels) in navigation.
In Duet v. Am. Comm’l Lines, LLC, No. 12-3025, 2013 WL 1682988 (E.D. La. April 17, 2013), Judge Jane Triche Milazzo, in denying remand, found that a plaintiff who was injured while working aboard the defendant’s vessel was not a Jones Act seaman. Duet, a mechanic, was assigned by his employer to work at a barge repair facility owned and operated by ACL Transportation Services, LLC. The facility consisted of “a number of barges tied together and moored to the riverbank in order to create a stationary work platform (the “floating dock”),” that extended 1-2 miles along the river. The barges serviced by the facility remain in the river but are moored to the floating dock. ACL also owns and operates several smaller push boats to help move the barges in and out of the facility, as well as shift the barges within the floating dock itself. Duet was not assigned to any specific vessel, but performed his mechanic duties on barges and push boats alike. He only boarded the push boats as necessary to complete his work on those boats or to be transported to the more remote locations within the facility that required his work. However, when necessary to reposition barges at the floating dock to facilitate repairs, he would occasionally work as a deckhand, and on two occasions had left the facility by boat to assist in sea trials and help save a sinking vessel. Duet was injured while working aboard one of the vessels and sued several defendants and his employer, alleging to be a Jones Act seaman.Continue Reading Eastern District of Louisiana Adopts Definition for “Perils of the Sea” for Seaman Status Analysis