Legal and Firm News

Case Summaries

Admiralty

[05/16] US v. Citgo Asphalt Refining Company
In action by parties to apportion monetary liability for damages caused when a tanker stuck an abandoned ship resulting in an oil spill, judgment that the port owner was not liable is reversed, where: 1) the tanker, and its owner, were implied beneficiaries of the port owner's safe berth warranty; 2) the safe berth warranty is an express assurance of safety, and that the named port exception to that warranty does not apply to hazards that are unknown to the parties and not reasonably foreseeable; 3) it is unclear if this warranty was actually breached, as the district court made no finding as to the tanker's actual draft nor the amount of clearance actually provided; 4) if the district court finds the contractual warranty issue is satisfied, then the district court needs to resolve the appropriate standard of care required, whether the port owner breached that standard, and if so, whether any such breach caused the accident; but 5) there was no error with the district court's holding that the port owner's alleged misrepresentation as to the depth of its berth was geographically irrelevant to the ultimate accident; and 6) the government has waived reliance on a partial settlement agreement with the port owner that, the government contends, precludes the port owner from making certain equitable defenses to the government's subrogation claims.

[04/26] Cleve Co. v. Hecny Transportation, Inc.
Summary judgment for defendant in an admiralty action brought by plaintiff, a seller of computer parts, is affirmed, where: 1) misdelivery claims against defendant, a freight forwarder, were barred by a one-year limitations period set forth in bills of lading; 2) the guarantee, which established no express statute of limitations, was initially effective to place the plaintiff and defendant in direct contractual privity, but was modified when the bills of lading issued; and 3) the Himalaya clause operated to extend the benefit of the one-year statute of limitations in the bills of lading beyond the common carrier that issued the bills of lading to defendant, an agent of the common carrier.

[04/15] Village of Bald Head Island v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Dismissal of plaintiff's complaint seeking to require defendant to honor commitments made to plaintiff and other North Carolina towns when developing its plans to widen, deepen, and realign portions of the Cape Fear River navigation channel, is affirmed, where: 1) defendant's failure to implement "commitments" made to plaintiff during development of the plans for the project was not final agency action subject to judicial review; and 2) the alleged contracts on which plaintiff relies for its contract claims are not maritime contracts that justify the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction.

[04/09] Kealhoa v. Office of Workers Compensation Programs
Evidence that a claimant planned his suicide does not necessarily preclude compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act because the proper inquiry is whether the claimant's work-related injury caused him to attempt suicide, so claimant's petition for review of the Benefits Review Board's decision is granted, and the matter is remanded for the Board or the Administrative Law Judge to apply the proper chain of causation test, and not the irresistible impulse test.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[05/17] Abraham v. St. Croix Renaissance Group
The district court's order remanding a civil action to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands is affirmed, where: 1) there is no error in the district court's conclusion that the "continuous release" of hazardous substances from defendant's premises constituted "an event or occurrence" for purposes of the mass-action exclusion, that happened in the Virgin Islands and that resulted in injuries in the Virgin Islands; and thus, 2) the civil action here is not a removable "mass action" under the Class Action Fairness Act.

[05/16] Forrester Environmental v. Wheelabrator Technologies
Summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's state law business tort claims is vacated and remanded, where the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims because: 1) defendant's allegedly inaccurate statements regarding its patent rights concerned conduct taking place entirely in Taiwan; 2) the use of a patented process outside the United States is not an act of patent infringement; and thus, 3) there is no prospect of a future U.S. infringement suit arising out of the Taiwan company's use of the parties' products in Taiwan, and accordingly no prospect of inconsistent judgments between state and federal courts.

[05/16] US v. Citgo Asphalt Refining Company
In action by parties to apportion monetary liability for damages caused when a tanker stuck an abandoned ship resulting in an oil spill, judgment that the port owner was not liable is reversed, where: 1) the tanker, and its owner, were implied beneficiaries of the port owner's safe berth warranty; 2) the safe berth warranty is an express assurance of safety, and that the named port exception to that warranty does not apply to hazards that are unknown to the parties and not reasonably foreseeable; 3) it is unclear if this warranty was actually breached, as the district court made no finding as to the tanker's actual draft nor the amount of clearance actually provided; 4) if the district court finds the contractual warranty issue is satisfied, then the district court needs to resolve the appropriate standard of care required, whether the port owner breached that standard, and if so, whether any such breach caused the accident; but 5) there was no error with the district court's holding that the port owner's alleged misrepresentation as to the depth of its berth was geographically irrelevant to the ultimate accident; and 6) the government has waived reliance on a partial settlement agreement with the port owner that, the government contends, precludes the port owner from making certain equitable defenses to the government's subrogation claims.

[05/16] Greene v. Bank of America
Judgment for defendant on plaintiff's claim of malicious prosecution entered after defendant's special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute was granted, is reversed, where plaintiff can demonstrate a prima facie case for malicious prosecution.

Read More