In Re: The Middlesex Corporation
4:14-cv-40145
D. Mass.Sep 21, 2015Background
- Middlesex Corporation owned a 30' x 40' barge assembled from four Poseidon barge sections and docked at its trestle on Lake Quinsigamond on Aug. 19–20, 2014.
- In the early morning of Aug. 20, 2014, a Bayliner motorboat operated by Gregory Polito struck the docked barge, destroying the boat and causing serious personal injuries; occupants had been drinking and the operator refused a breath test.
- Claimants (including Mazzone and the Politos) notified Middlesex of claims; Middlesex filed a complaint for exoneration from or limitation of liability under the Limitation of Shipowners’ Liability Act and Supplemental Rule F within six months of notice.
- Middlesex deposited approved security ($159,202 valuation appraisal of the barge, $500 costs, and 6% interest) and sought a court order approving the security, directing notice, and enjoining other proceedings.
- Potential claimants objected at hearing partly by contesting jurisdiction/value, but no later brief was filed; court accepted Complaint allegations for purposes of ruling and found Middlesex’s showing sufficient to make lack of privity/knowledge and absence of fault possible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Middlesex complied with the Act and Supplemental Rule F prerequisites (timely filing; deposit of security; security for costs/interest) | Middlesex: filed within six months after written claim; deposited security and costs/interest as required | Claimants: challenged adequacy of filing/security and intended to contest jurisdiction/value | Held: Middlesex complied on its face; security approved and Rule F prerequisites satisfied; injunction granted |
| Whether plaintiff showed lack of privity or knowledge such that exoneration or limitation might be possible | Middlesex: alleged absence of privity/knowledge, lack of fault or unseaworthiness by the barge | Claimants: contended Middlesex negligence caused the accident (filed separate limitation petition) | Held: Complaint alleges facts sufficient to make absence of liability possible; proceeding may go forward to adjudicate liability later |
| Adequacy of the valuation of the vessel for the limitation fund | Middlesex: proffered marine survey appraisal valuing the offending barge at $159,202 and provided security accordingly | Claimants: argued larger interconnected barges might constitute a single vessel with greater value | Held: Court found the offered security adequate for now; claimants may later challenge fund amount in the limitation proceedings |
| Whether court should enjoin other suits and direct notice under Supplemental Rule F | Middlesex: requested injunction to stay all other proceedings and for issuance of notice to claimants | Claimants: opposed injunction asserting jurisdictional and valuation objections | Held: Court granted injunction and ordered notice under Rule F(4); other proceedings against Middlesex related to the incident are stayed pending this action |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (U.S. 2001) (describing district court’s role in limitation proceedings: securing vessel value, marshaling claims, adjudicating liability and distributing limited fund)
- Complaint of Consolidation Coal Co., 123 F.3d 126 (3d Cir. 1997) (discussing filing limitation actions and effect of staying other proceedings)