502 F.Supp.3d 1078
E.D. La.2020Background:
- On January 19, 2019, Bonvillian Marine’s towboat M/V MISS APRIL allided with Baywater’s crewboat M/V MISS SADIE ELIZABETH, causing property damage and injuries to seaman Junior Pellegrin.
- Baywater’s claims examiner (Bickford) exchanged pre-suit emails/medical records in Feb–Mar 2019 with Bonvillian’s adjuster (Carney), which included a surgeon’s note indicating possible future lumbar surgery.
- Pellegrin filed suit in Louisiana state court on August 23, 2019; Bonvillian filed a limitation action in federal court in December 2019 and valued the vessel at $328,000.
- Baywater moved to dismiss the limitation action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing written pre-suit communications gave Bonvillian notice more than six months before the limitation filing.
- Bonvillian argued the six-month deadline is nonjurisdictional after United States v. Wong and that the pre-suit communications did not establish a reasonable possibility damages would exceed the vessel value.
- The court applied Fifth Circuit precedent, found Carney was Bonvillian’s agent and the medical records raised a reasonable possibility of damages above $328,000, and dismissed the limitation action for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues:
| Issue | Baywater's Argument | Bonvillian's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §30511’s six‑month filing deadline is jurisdictional | The six‑month deadline is jurisdictional; timeliness is a jurisdictional prerequisite | Post‑Wong, the deadline is nonjurisdictional and should be an affirmative defense | Treated as jurisdictional under binding Fifth Circuit precedent (In re Eckstein, RLB) |
| Whether pre‑suit written communications constituted written notice to the owner | Yes—emails and medical records sent to Bonvillian’s adjuster (Carney) gave written notice | Carney lacked authority to receive limitation notice; he was only a claims/settlement agent | Carney was Bonvillian’s agent; notice to him imputed to owner under agency principles |
| Whether the communications revealed a “reasonable possibility” the claim would exceed vessel value | Medical records showing possible future spine surgery made a reasonable possibility that damages would exceed $328,000 | Surgery was only a contingency; possibility was speculative and insufficient | Surgeon’s note plus inquiry about surgery satisfied the “reasonable possibility” standard; notice triggered six‑month clock |
| Timeliness of Bonvillian’s limitation filing | N/A (movant seeking dismissal) | Bonvillian filed within six months of the state court suit; therefore timely | Filing was untimely because written notice occurred March 13, 2019; limitation should have been filed by Sept. 13, 2019; dismissal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (FTCA filing deadlines held nonjurisdictional; set framework for assessing whether a time bar is jurisdictional)
- In re Eckstein Marine Serv., L.L.C., 672 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2012) (Fifth Circuit treats Limitation Act’s six‑month deadline as jurisdictional)
- In re RLB Contracting, Inc., 773 F.3d 596 (5th Cir. 2014) (adopted the “reasonable possibility” standard for written notice under §30511)
- Orion Marine Constr., Inc. v. Carroll, 918 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2019) (applied Wong to hold Limitation Act time limits nonjurisdictional and recognized agents can receive notice)
- Diamond v. Butel, 247 F.2d 604 (5th Cir. 1957) (owner may appoint agent to receive notice; notice to agent is effective)
- Trinity Marine Prods., Inc. v. United States, 812 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2016) (discusses Wong’s effect but reaffirms circuit treatment where applicable)