The Supreme Court rules that it does not, in Dutra Group v. Batterton, decided on June 24, 2019.
“This case asks whether a mariner may recover punitive damages on a claim that he was injured as a result of the unseaworthy condition of the vessel.” With that introduction, Justice Alito began a fascinating history of maritime personal injury claims on behalf of merchant seamen. In maritime and admiralty cases, the federal courts sitting as courts of admiralty “proceed in the manner of a common law court,” as instructed by the Constitution. In Batterton, the Court exercised its jurisdiction to decide that punitive damages are not available in a mariner’s personal injury claim based upon unseaworthiness of the vessel.
Christopher Batterton worked as a deckhand on vessels owned by Dutra Group. His hand was injured when it was caught between a bulkhead and a hatch that blew off as a result of unventilated air accumulating and pressurizing with the compartment.
John has been named co-chair of the Transportation ADR Council, an arm of the Transportation Lawyer’s Association, a nationwide organization of attorneys in corporate, government, and private practice in the field of transportation law. Together with the ADR Council’s other newly-named co-chair, Dan Fulkerson, Esq., of Houston, John will manage the arbitration/mediation apparatus for resolution of legal disputes arising in the transportation industry.
Recognizing the value of alternate dispute resolution and the benefit it would avail to members of the transportation industry, John along with several other TLA members, sought to create a body of rigorously-trained arbitrators and mediators who are experts in transportation law, and a system of arbitration procedures that accommodate the parties. Under the leadership of Steve Uthoff, Esq. and Eric Benton, Esq., they formed the Transportation ADR Council.
In addition to his role with the ADR Council, John is a member of the American Arbitration Association, the New Jersey Association of Professional Mediators, the Garibaldi Inn of Court for Alternative Dispute Resolution, the Dispute Resolution Sections of the New Jersey and New York State Bar Associations, and has recently been accepted as an arbitrator for the Financial Industry Regulatory Agency, FINRA. John also serves as a mediator in the Superior Court of New Jersey.
An appellate court in New Jersey says that it is. In Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Penske Truck Leasing, Co., CEVA Freight, LLC, and Michael Kika, a recently published decision, the Appellate Division ruled that a self-insured must submit to mandatory arbitration in regard to a PIP reimbursement claim. An arbitrator, not a court, will decide whether the self-insured was negligent and must reimburse the PIP carrier. The decision is important because it is the first such published opinion.
We are often asked in trucking cases whether we can settle a personal injury claim and also have the claimant release the “PIP Subrogation” claim, or the “PIP Lien.” In these states, the answer is “No.”
It really isn’t subrogation, or even a “lien.” And it makes a difference. In both states, the right of the PIP carrier to be reimbursed for its payments of medical expenses and lost earnings arises from statute. The right of reimbursement takes life when the first payment is made. Only the PIP carrier has the right of reimbursement, and only the PIP carrier can release the claim. That right of reimbursement is enforced, generally, through arbitration mandated by statute. In this regard, the PIP reimbursement claim is substantively and procedurally different from a worker’s compensation lien, or a physical damage subrogation claim.
In 1966, the landmark case of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was decided. The 5-4 majority held that a person in custody must be informed of his right to counsel before and during questioning, and the right to not self-incriminate. It further held that the suspect must not only understand these rights but, should the suspect choose to waive these rights, that it be done voluntarily. While most are familiar with the case of Miranda v. Arizona, which gave rise to the term “Miranda rights,” did you know that three additional cases fell under this SCOTUS ruling? Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart, had been consolidated with Miranda.
In 1967, Thurgood Marshall was nominated to the Court by President Johnson. He was confirmed on August 30, 1967, by a vote of 69-11, becoming the first African American to serve as an Associate Justice. Justice Marshall, himself, won 29 out of the 32 cases he argued before the Supreme Court, the most famous being Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
The United States Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Maritime Law, a unique and large body of federal common law, tempered by any controlling Congressional enactments. So, in recently decided Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries, the Court addressed the scope of the duty of a marine product manufacturer to warn of a potential harm from a part that is required to be incorporated into its product. Here, the part to be added contained asbestos, and it allegedly led to the deaths of two Navy sailors. Their families sued the manufacturer of pumps, blowers, and turbines, but not the manufacturer of the asbestos-containing added part that actually caused the harm. The Supreme Court sided with the families.
Mix a safe, a blowtorch, and $4,000,000 in pearls, and you have a dandy insurance coverage fight. Companion Trading Company, a New York business, purchased a safe from Mega Security Company, in New Jersey. Companion used the safe to store semi-precious jewelry, including pearls at its New York location. For some reason the safe door became immovable, and Companion called Mega in to investigate. Mega’s technician could not open the door, and so arranged to ship the safe back to New Jersey for further work. Over several days Mega employees and an outside technician worked on the safe in vain at Mega’s headquarters. Finally, they opened the safe by using a blowtorch. When Companion got it back and checked the contents, they saw that a valuable cache of pearls had been damaged.
This case involves an on-line retailer, E-Commerce China, and the plan of its majority shareholders to buy out the minority owners in a “going private merger.” The company is incorporated in the Cayman Islands. The minority shareholders brought suit in Manhattan federal court, urging that the purchase price was below market value and grossly unfair. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, claiming that the case should properly be brought in the Cayman Islands, the company’s home of incorporation.