The Limitation of Liability Act provides, inter alia, that a vessel owner may petition a district court of competent jurisdiction for limitation of liability within six months of receiving written notice of a claim.  See generally 46 U.S.C.A §§ 30501-30512 (West 2010).  If the vessel owner fails to petition the court and the six month period lapses, it is thereafter precluded from seeking the Act’s protection.  The Act, however, does not address the effect that one co-owner’s failure to file a petition for limitation has on another co-owner’s right to subsequently seek limitation of liability. In other words, if co-owner “X” of a vessel receives notice of a claim against it and fails to file for limitation of liability within the requisite six-month period, is co-owner “Y,” who did not receive notice, precluded from filing for limitation of liability?

Continue Reading Limitation of Liability – Effect of Notice to a Single Co-Owner

It is well known that a seaman who is injured on the job can file suit against his employer in negligence due to the statutory provisions of the Jones Act. 45 U.S.C.A §§ 30104.  However, in a Jones Act suit, the injured seaman is prohibited from recovering “non-pecuniary” damages from his employer, a category which includes punitive damages and loss of consortium. (1).  This limitation on recoverable damages is due to the language of Jones Act itself. Miles v. Apex, 498 U.S. 19 (1990).

In addition to bringing claims against his employer pursuant to the Jones Act, a seaman injured on the job often also files claims against non-employers. These claims are not dependant on the Jones Act, but rather general maritime law. In this situation, plaintiffs often attempt to recover non-pecuniary damages from the non-employer. Plaintiffs suggest that since there is no specific prohibition against the recovery of non-pecuniary damages in general maritime law, then why should an injured seaman be denied recovering non-pecuniary damages from non-employers?
Continue Reading A Jones Act Seaman Does Not Have Greater Remedies Against A Non-Employer Than He Does Against His Employer

By the Admiralty and Maritime Team

Due to the non-pecuniary nature of pain and suffering, Jones Act seamen will often use various methods to provide the trier of fact with a concrete basis for a damage award for pain and suffering.  One method that Plaintiffs may utilize is to introduce their medical bills for the sole purpose of highlighting the cost of their medical care.  Once the bills have been admitted, Plaintiffs will argue to the trier of fact that the high dollar amount of their medical bills corroborate their pain and suffering.  Alternatively, Defendants may introduce medical bills and point to the low cost of a Plaintiff’s medical care to prove the Plaintiff’s lack of pain and suffering.

Continue Reading Medical Bills Are Not Admissible to Prove Pain and Suffering

The United States Supreme Court recently resolved conflicts among the Circuit Courts about the citizenship of a corporation for determining diversity of citizenship jurisdiction (1). This will allow corporations to analyze with more predictable results whether to remove a case to federal court. In Hertz Corp. v. Friend, et al, No. 08-1107 (February 23, 2010) (a unanimous decision, which is unusual in and of itself), the Court decided that when determining a corporation’s citizenship for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, the “principal place of business” of the corporation is “the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities”—something that courts have referred to as the “nerve center” of the corporation.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Clarifies Definition of a Corporation’s “Principal Place of Business”

In 2006, the Louisiana Legislature enacted Louisiana Revised Statute 30:29 (“Act 312”) to provide a procedure for judicial resolution of claims for environmental damage to property. The provisions of Act 312 are applicable whenever there is “any litigation or pleading making a judicial demand arising from or alleging environmental damage” involving “contamination resulting from activities associated with oilfield sites or exploration and production (“E&P”) sites,” regardless of whether claims for remediation arise under the Louisiana Mineral Code or Civil Code. La. R.S. 30:29(I)(1).

Continue Reading Is Act 312 Applicable to My Operation?

On Friday, April 9, 2010, the Louisiana Supreme Court (1) reversed the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in Cimarex Energy Co. v. Mauboules (2), in which the Circuit Court held that

(1) a royalty interest vendors’ oral assertion to a mineral lessee that the royalty interest vendee fraudulently inserted a prescription interruption provision in the royalty deed, and that therefore the royalty interest had reverted back to the vendors, is not a reasonable basis for the mineral lessee to initiate a concursus proceeding to determine the ownership of royalty payments because the innocent third party purchaser of the royalty interests is protected by the public records doctrine; and

(2) the mineral lessee is liable not only for the royalties paid into the registry of the court, but also for an additional sum equal to double the amount of royalties paid into the registry of the court, as damages.

The Third Circuit decision represented a gross departure from well-established Louisiana law relating to concursus proceedings, upon which the oil and gas industry, and mineral royalty payors in particular, have long relied in order to avoid the risk of multiple liability and the vexation of multiple lawsuits, as well as to avoid a penalty for nonpayment of royalties pursuant to Mineral Code provisions allowing a penalty under certain circumstances.

Continue Reading Louisiana Supreme Court Reaffirms Availability of Concursus Procedure for Royalty Payors, But Leaves Questions Concerning Provisions of the Mineral Code Governing Claims for Failure to Pay Royalties Unanswered

Cordell and Brian Haymon are attorneys, which means the fine points of selling a business do not intimidate them. Yet when the time came to sell Petroleum Services Corporation, a firm their father started in 1952, they didn’t try to do all the work themselves. Instead, they hired Kean Miller’s Blane Clark. As Mr. Clark explains, many business owners are far less comfortable with the process.

Read the entire article. 

 

 

On March 21, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives on almost a straight party-line vote passed two final healthcare reform bills late Sunday night. Initially, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3950, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, by a vote of 219 to 212.

Following the passage of H.R. 3950, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010, by a vote of 220 to 211. This second bill by the House modifies the Senate bill (H.R. 3590), and H.R. 4872 will serve as the foundation for any changes made by Congress to the current healthcare delivery, payment and insurance system. Some of the insurance-related changes that may have immediate impact include: lifetime caps on coverage end; children can stay on parents’ policies until age 26, and insurance companies can’t cancel coverage except in the case of fraud. A significant issue of addressing the Medicare physician payment formula still remains unresolved, as well as medical liability reform.

The changes addressed in H.R. 4872, sought by House Democrats and President Obama, will be considered by the Senate under budget reconciliation rules requiring a simple majority to pass and send it to President Obama for his signature. Senate Republicans have stated their intention to offer numerous amendments and raise multiple points of order to the legislation. If the H.R. 4872 is changed in any way prior to Senate approval, it must return to the House for an additional vote before President Obama can sign it.
 

As discussed in the recent New York Times article, federal and state officials, many facing record budget deficits, are starting to aggressively pursue companies that try to pass off regular employees as independent contractors.

President Obama’s 2010 budget assumes that the federal crackdown will yield at least $7 billion over 10 years.  More than two dozen states also have stepped up enforcement, often by enacting stricter penalties for misclassifying workers.  This effort is intended to reign in what regulators believe is a trend among companies to cut costs by classifying regular employees as independent contractors, though they often are given desks, phone lines and assignments just like regular employees. Moreover, the experts say, workers have become more reluctant to challenge such practices, given the tough job market.

To determine if you or your company is complying with the rules and regulations as applicable to independent contractors, please call your attorney.

In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies on March 3, 2010, Administrator Lisa Jackson of the Environmental Protection Agency indicated that EPA plans to move forward with adopting the Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) Tailoring Rule (74 Fed.Reg. 55,292) later this month.  The Tailoring Rule is intended to ameliorate the impact of GHGs becoming “regulated pollutants” under the Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V programs, which would otherwise be fully triggered by the enactment of another EPA proposed rule concerning GHG emissions from cars and light duty trucks. (74 Fed.Reg. 49,454)

Continue Reading EPA To Move Forward With Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule