Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals News

Vessel owners rarely carry cargo for their own account. More commonly by far, a vessel owner will charter its vessel to another party to carry their (or their sub-charterer’s) cargo. The contracts can vary widely – from voyage charters or contracts of affreightment to time charters to negotiable bills of lading (not to mention the more complex arrangements that one often sees for container cargos). But in most instances, vessel owners are in the business of transporting cargo on behalf of others and, all going well, of being paid to do so.

For operational purposes, it is critical to know what type of employees you have on your vessel. Failure to do so could be expensive. As vessel operators, we pay close attention the provisions of the Jones Act and how they affect the operation, crewing and administration of our marine-based operations. A determination that your vessel-based crews are seamen under maritime law creates a different employment relationship when compared to employees designated as longshoremen or land-based employees.

Wood Group PSN Inc., a Nevada corporation headquartered in Houston, was ordered to pay $9.5 million in two separate cases involving its conduct in the Gulf of Mexico. Specifically, Wood Group PSN was ordered to pay $7 million for falsely reporting over several years that personnel had performed safety inspections on offshore facilities in the Gulf of Mexico in the Western District of Louisiana, and $1.8 million for negligently discharging oil into the Gulf of Mexico in violation of the Clean Water Act after an explosion on an offshore facility in the Eastern District of Louisiana, announced Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeff Wood of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana Stephanie A. Finley, and U.S.

BP pays billions in compensation but some claims still unpaid; Oil still appearing on beaches in Gulf of Mexico. Company says claims process is flawed, not all oil from spill. Four years after the Deepwater Horizon spill, oil is still washing up on the long sandy beaches of Grand Isle, Louisiana, and some islanders are fed up with hearing from BP that the crisis is over. Jules Melancon, the last remaining oyster fisherman on an island dotted with colourful houses on stilts, says he has not found a single oyster alive in his leases in the area since the leak and relies on an onshore oyster nursery to make a living. He and others in the southern U.S. state say compensation has been paid unevenly and lawyers have taken big cuts.

Four years after the Deepwater Horizon spill, oil is still washing up on the long sandy beaches of Grand Isle, Louisiana, and some islanders are fed up with hearing from BP that the crisis is over. Jules Melancon, the last remaining oyster fisherman on an island dotted with colourful houses on stilts, says he has not found a single oyster alive in his leases in the area since the leak and relies on an onshore oyster nursery to make a living. He and others in the southern U.S. state say compensation has been paid unevenly and lawyers have taken big cuts. The British oil major has paid out billions of dollars in compensation under a settlement experts say is unprecedented in its breadth. Some claimants are satisfied, but others are irate that BP is now challenging aspects of the settlement.

A recent ruling by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals clears the way for seaman to recover punitive damages in unseaworthiness claims, according to Jones Act attorney Matthew Shaffer. In the facts of the case, McBride v. Estis Well Serv., L.L.C., No. 12 – 30714, a man was killed and three others injured while working on a barge supporting a truck-mounted drilling rig in south Louisiana. The original lawsuit claimed negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness under general maritime law. Shaffer, a Jones Act attorney with the Houston maritime law firm Schechter, McElwee, Shaffer & Harris, said the ruling is significant for injured workers.

An important decision affecting vicarious liability for Jones Act employers for the acts of their employees was issued August 14, 2012 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision, an action against Hercules Drilling Company represented by LeBlanc Bland, P.L.L.C. with offices in New Orleans and Houston, reverses the Eastern District of Louisiana’s earlier ruling, has significant implications for employers in the maritime industry, confirming the test for course and scope of employment for Jones Act employees. The decision results from a tragic case (Amanda Beech v. Hercules Drilling Company, LLC., No. 11-30415) in which an employee of Hercules Drilling Company, in violation of company policy, unintentionally brought a firearm to his job aboard a jack-up drilling rig.

Fowler Rodriquez Valdes-Fauli announced that former Assistant United States Attorney Peter Thomson has joined the firm as a partner and will lead the firm’s maritime criminal defense division. Mr. Thomson brings an outstanding set of credentials and an impeccable record spanning twenty-three years of service with the U.S. Department of Justice. In this era of heightened criminal enforcement and government scrutiny, corporate leaders and businesses need a counselor of Mr. Thomson’s…

The Bisso Doctrine takes its name from the 1955 U.S. Supreme Court case, Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., in which it was established in a majority opinion of the Court that exculpatory clauses in towing contracts are invalid as a matter of public policy. That decision has had serious impact on the United States towing industry, and has affected decisions on whether to make U.S. choice of law and forum applicable to towing contracts where there were other options. It nonetheless remains the law of the land.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a significant ruling benefiting ship mortgagees and other maritime creditors with decisions in two related cases stemming from the bankruptcy of Commodore Cruise Lines (“Commodore”). In one case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that AmWest Surety Ins. Co. ("AmWest") and other sureties who provided the $15 million bond required by the FMC for cruise operators calling at U.S. ports to secure refunds for passengers (an "FMC Bond"), had no lien on the Commodore Ships, and also ruled that Harris Trust & Savings Bank ("Harris Bank") which provided credit card services to Commodore under a merchant services agreement (and which provided refunds to passengers), also did not have a lien.

By Jeanne M. Over the last ten or so years, criminal prosecutions have become commonplace in the maritime industry. The most common prosecutions stem from environmental violations, but often also include charges of false statements, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. Over the last several years, however, a new trend has begun - that of prosecutions under the Seaman's Manslaughter Statute. These prosecutions have come to the fore because of the Staten Island Ferry incident, which occurred in 2003, where the Seaman's Manslaughter Statute was used to extract guilty pleas from the pilot and a shoreside official. History of the Seaman's Manslaughter Statute.

In 1991, casinos were legalized in the state of Louisiana through the passage of the Louisiana Gaming Act. Riverboat casinos have been operational in the state since 1993. The Louisiana Gaming Act allows for fifteen riverboat licenses with mandatory Coast Guard certification of the vessels. The Act allows for both dockside and riverboat gaming. Five other states have riverboat casino gambling: Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri and Mississippi. Although riverboat gaming has gained legal recognition in these states, riverboat casino employees have not had the same success in gaining seaman status under the Jones Act. The Jones Act (46 U.S.C. sec.

In March of 1998, the owners of M/V Golden Prince were locked in a wage dispute with current and former crewmembers. The vessel owners hired a law firm from New Orleans, La., to help resolve this wage dispute. The crew sought wages and penalties from the ship owner due to an alleged breach of contract governing their pay. Ultimately, the crewmembers seized M/V Golden Prince to enforce their claims. The law firm rendered over $136,000.00 in legal fees to settle the wage claims and negotiate the release of the seized vessel. These legal fees were never paid by the ship owner. Subsequently, in January of 1999, creditors of M/V Golden Prince seized the vessel. The vessel was then sold at a public auction for $3.51 million.