What is the Insured’s Duty Under a Marine Insurance Policy? It Depends …
The law governing marine insurance in the United States has long been a source of considerable confusion. And if there was once a clear set of principles applicable in such cases, the Supreme Court long ago muddied the waters with their infamous ruling in Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 310 (1955). That case, involving a fire on a houseboat on an inland man-made lake on the Texas-Oklahoma border, established the “litmus test” for when maritime law should…
Offshore: Winds of change or a storm to weather?
From the July 2010 edition of MarineNews. With all the activity in the offshore and inland markets these days there is a ray of hope for operators who are willing to adapt to the changes that are coming. As mariners, we are good at adapting, unfortunately, we’ll be dealing with conflicting governance of state and federal laws and the uncertainty of subchapter status for new vessel types to be designed, constructed and operated in support of the emerging offshore wind energy market.
Admiralty law preempts state unfair trade practices statute
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled that federal admiralty law preempts the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. In the instant case, plaintiff insured his boat with defendant insurers. The boat sank in a storm and plaintiff filed a claim. After receiving payment, plaintiff filed a supplemental claim. When the parties couldn’t reach agreement, plaintiff sought and obtained an extension of the time to file suit. After the agreed extension expired, plaintiff filed suit alleging, among other things, that defendants violated the state unfair trade practices act, entitling him to attorneys’ fees and punitive damages. Defendants sought summary judgment.
