Limitation Of Liability Act

114 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• In re the complaint of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
  850 F. Supp. 2d 653· S.D. Fla.· 2013-02-04
  The liability waiver signed by the passenger is unenforceable under 46 U.S.C. § 30509 because it attempts to limit the cruise line's liability for negligence. Royal Caribbean is not exonerated from liability for failing to provide a competent jet ski operator, and its liability i
• In re the Complaint of Gore Marine Corp.
  767 F. Supp. 2d 1316· M.D. Fla.· 2011-02-10
  The court held that the stationary dredge pipeline was not at fault for the allision, and the moving vessel (MISS JIGGS) was presumed to be at fault under the Oregon Rule, a presumption not rebutted by the claimants.
• In re the Complaint of Levenshon
  407 F. Supp. 2d 1349· S.D. Fla.· 2005-12-28
  The court denied the motion to increase security because the movant failed to provide evidentiary support for the claim that the vessel was undervalued.
• Marmac, LLC v. Reed
  158 F. Supp. 616· M.D. Fla.· 2005-11-23
  The court held that the Petitioners/Third Party Plaintiffs could not invoke Rule 14(c) because the Claimants did not make an explicit Rule 9(h) designation and demanded jury trials, despite the general propriety of impleader in limitation actions.
• In re Williams Marine Constr. & Servs., Inc.
  350 F. Supp. 2d 975· M.D. Fla.· 2004-04-27
  The court granted summary judgment for Hood on Omne's claims, finding they were personal contract claims not subject to limitation. The court denied summary judgment on Williams Marine's limitation of liability claim due to disputed material facts.
• In re Complaint of Mobro Marine, Inc.
  278 F. Supp. 2d 1290· M.D. Fla.· 2003-03-04
  The court held that the initial notice letters did not provide sufficient notice of the tug's involvement, allowing amendment to include it in the limitation of liability action, but requiring a separate limitation fund for the tug.
• In re the Complaint of Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.
  14 F.R.D. 142· M.D. Fla.· 1995-03-13
  The court held that a claimant's stipulation must adequately protect the shipowner from potential third-party claims exceeding the limitation fund before a stay on state court actions will be lifted. The stipulation was found insufficient as written but could be amended.
• In re the Complaint of Martell
  742 F. Supp. 1147· S.D. Fla.· 1990-07-20
  The court held that Roscioli, as a bareboat charterer without privity or knowledge of the negligence, was entitled to exoneration under the Limitation of Liability Act, while Guy Gannett, also a bareboat charterer, was denied limitation due to its privity and knowledge of the neg
• In re Talbott BIG Foot, Inc. v. Boudreaux
  854 F.2d 758· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-14
  An interlocutory order increasing security in a Limitation of Liability Act case is appealable, and the determination of whether a vessel is 'seagoing' for increased security purposes depends on whether it is normally expected to engage in substantial operations beyond the Bounda
• Union OIL Co. OF Cal. v. M/V Point Dover
  756 F.2d 1223· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-11
  The court held that the charter party's "actual fault or privity" clause, interpreted in light of maritime law, prevents the imputation of the Master's negligence to the vessel owner under respondeat superior, thus precluding owner liability for damages caused by the Master's err
• In re Complaint of Tropigas Carriers, Inc.
  603 F. Supp. 940· S.D. Fla.· 1985-02-26
  The court held that a single claimant may proceed with a state court action for personal injuries, provided they concede the sufficiency of the stipulation for value and waive res judicata regarding the limitation of liability issue.