7 F. Supp. 3d 238
N.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Barge B-252 is owned by A.P. Franz, Jr., Trustee; Buchanan Marine, L.P. is the bareboat charterer.
- On Oct. 16, 2012 Volk sued Buchanan in state court alleging injury aboard the barge.
- Buchanan filed a federal limitation of liability action on Apr. 15, 2013 seeking exoneration or limitation under the Limitation of Liability Act.
- The Volks moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing untimeliness, failure to plead bareboat charterer status, privity/knowledge, application of the flotilla doctrine, and a so‑called home port doctrine.
- The court stayed discovery; the Volks relied on workers’ compensation filings and other materials to argue Buchanan had prior written notice and that broader vessel surrender was required.
- Court ordered Buchanan to increase security by $10,000 for pending freight but denied the Volks’ motion to dismiss in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under 46 U.S.C. § 30511 / Supp. R. F(1) | Volks: prior workers’ comp filings and LS‑202 constituted written notice starting six‑month clock | Buchanan: those documents were compensation notices, not claims subject to limitation; first notice was service of state complaint on Nov. 27, 2012 | Denied dismissal; limitation action timely because only service of the state court complaint started the six‑month period |
| Bareboat charterer pleading sufficiency | Volks: complaint lacks factual allegations showing Buchanan is bareboat charterer | Buchanan: complaint alleges Buchanan was bareboat charterer; allegation accepted as true on motion to dismiss | Denied dismissal; allegation suffices at pleading stage |
| Privity or knowledge (46 U.S.C. § 30505) | Volks: Buchanan had privity/knowledge; submits photos and expert material outside pleadings | Buchanan: pleads lack of privity/knowledge; factual dispute not resolvable on 12(b)(6) | Denied dismissal; allegation that accident occurred without privity/knowledge suffices to survive motion |
| Flotilla doctrine / scope of fund | Volks: entire flotilla and aggregate freight must be surrendered; seek increased security and disclosures | Buchanan: flotilla doctrine inapplicable on these facts; concedes $10,000 increase for pending freight only | Denied dismissal; flotilla potentially relevant but factual record insufficient at pleading stage; ordered $10,000 increase for pending freight |
| Home port doctrine | Volks: limitation improper because vessel remained near home port | Buchanan: no such doctrine applicable; no facts pled to support it | Denied dismissal; no pleaded or submitted facts to invoke home port rationale |
Key Cases Cited
- Lerner v. Fleet Bank, N.A., 318 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2003) (standard for Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) review)
- In re Spearin, Preston & Burrows, Inc., 190 F.2d 684 (2d Cir. 1951) (six‑month limitation period begins only on notice of claim subject to limitation)
- In re Hutchinson (The Spare Time II), 28 F. Supp. 519 (E.D.N.Y. 1938) (knowledge of facts alone does not trigger limitation notice)
- In re Am. M.A.R.C., Inc., 224 F. Supp. 573 (S.D. Cal. 1963) (worker’s compensation notice insufficient to trigger limitation period)
- Otal Invs. Ltd. v. M/V Clary, 673 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2012) (two‑step test: causation then owner’s privity or knowledge)
- Standard Dredging Co. v. Kristiansen, 67 F.2d 548 (2d Cir. 1933) (origin of flotilla doctrine)
- The George W. Pratt, 76 F.2d 902 (2d Cir. 1935) (vessels to be surrendered are those engaged in performance at time of fault)
- In re U.S. Dredging Corp., 264 F.2d 339 (2d Cir. 1959) (flotilla rule applied where vessels were integral to contract performance)
- Murray v. N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co., 287 F.2d 152 (2d Cir. 1961) (only tug and barge involved in accident required surrender; flotilla not warranted on those facts)