514 S.W.3d 331
Tex. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Rasheed Lawal, a seaman, was injured aboard OSG’s vessel on July 19, 2015; he received maintenance and cure under a CBA with the Seafarers International Union.
- OSG offered a Post Incident Payment Plan (PPA): up to $10,000 paid over months in exchange for litigation limited to federal or state courts in Hillsborough County, Florida; Lawal signed the PPA on Aug. 3, 2015 and received payments.
- Lawal sued OSG in Harris County, Texas under the Jones Act and general maritime law; OSG moved to dismiss based on the PPA’s forum‑selection clause.
- Lawal argued the PPA was an unenforceable venue clause, lacked consideration, was void under FELA as incorporated by the Jones Act, was an overreaching release signed without counsel, and violated the CBA because no union representative participated.
- The Texas appellate court concluded the PPA contains an enforceable forum‑selection clause, is supported by consideration, is not void under FELA/Jones Act or federal maritime public policy, and did not require union representation under the CBA; it conditionally granted mandamus directing dismissal in favor of enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PPA contains an enforceable forum‑selection clause or merely a venue clause | PPA selects Hillsborough County (county-level venue) and thus is a venue clause unenforceable by motion to dismiss | Clause selects Hillsborough County within Florida which implies selection of Florida as forum and is a forum‑selection clause enforceable by dismissal | Court: Clause is a forum‑selection clause and is enforceable |
| Whether PPA is supported by consideration | PPA fails because CBA already required maintenance and cure (preexisting duty) | OSG promised additional guaranteed payment ($10,000) over the CBA amount, providing new consideration | Court: PPA supported by consideration |
| Whether FELA or Jones Act voids forum‑selection clause (Boyd argument) | Jones Act incorporates FELA; Boyd voids forum‑selection clauses under FELA, so PPA is void | Jones Act does not incorporate FELA’s venue/voidness principle for this purpose; venue is procedural not a "regulation of recovery" | Court: FELA/Boyd do not render the PPA unenforceable under the Jones Act |
| Whether CBA required union representation for PPA | CBA covers injured seaman’s legal rights; employer had to bargain via union, so direct deal violated CBA | PPA is a separate post‑injury agreement that does not change terms/conditions of employment or wages and did not require union representation | Court: CBA did not require union representation for the PPA; employer may contract directly with seaman |
Key Cases Cited
- M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972) (forum‑selection clauses presumptively valid and enforceable absent unreasonableness)
- Boyd v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co., 338 U.S. 263 (1949) (contracts restricting FELA venue held void)
- Pure Oil Co. v. Suarez, 384 U.S. 202 (1966) (Jones Act venue interpretation in light of federal venue statute)
- Terrebonne v. K-Sea Transp. Corp., 477 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 2007) (Jones Act does not incorporate FELA venue/voidness provisions for arbitration clauses)
- Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991) (federal law governs enforceability of forum‑selection clauses in admiralty)
- In re Lisa Laser USA, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. 2010) (Texas mandamus available to enforce unambiguous forum‑selection clauses)