MS Amlin Marine NV v. Delta Marine Industries Inc, 2:23-cv-00014

The case concerns significant property damage to a luxury yacht (the TRITON) after Defendant Delta Marine Industries (Delta) used an allegedly overloaded Marine Travelift (“Big Bob”) to return the yacht to the water.
Plaintiffs are the yacht’s insurers; they sued Delta (for gross negligence) and inspection companies Kendrick and Arxcis (for negligence and gross negligence) after Big Bob failed, dropping and partially sinking the yacht.
Both Kendrick and Arxcis routinely inspected and certified Big Bob before the incident; neither noted problems that could have predicted the failure.
Delta argued that claims were time-barred based on a one-year contractual limitation, but the timeline was affected by a tolling agreement for mediation and subsequent actions by both parties.
Notably, Delta disassembled and discarded some relevant components from Big Bob after the accident, leading to allegations of evidence spoliation.
The opinion addresses multiple summary judgment and evidentiary motions, ultimately setting several factual disputes for trial and resolving spoliation and witness exclusion disputes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are claims time-barred by contractual limitation?	Delta is estopped by its conduct during tolling/mediation period.	Tolling agreement expired; suit untimely.	Not time-barred; Delta estopped from relying on limit
Did Delta commit gross negligence (voiding limitation)	Knowingly overloaded lift, in reckless disregard of yacht/property.	TRITON light enough; Big Bob never overloaded; no reckless disregard shown.	Fact issues preclude summary judgment for either.
Do Kendrick/Arxcis owe a duty to plaintiffs?	Owed duty of reasonable care under maritime negligence.	No duty; only contracted with Delta (not plaintiffs).	Duty owed under general maritime law.
Did spoliation of evidence occur?	Delta's handling/alteration/disposal of components prejudiced plaintiffs' case.	No anticipated litigation at time; components not relevant or preserved in alternate form.	Delta spoliated evidence; adverse inference ordered.
Should expert testimony be excluded?	Delta failed to disclose experts properly; some testimony unreliable or legal conclusions.	Plaintiffs’ experts' methods faulty; some testimony irrelevant (e.g., Clean Water Act regs).	Some experts/testimony excluded on both sides.

E. River S.S. Corp. v. Transam. Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (1986) (describing general maritime law as an amalgam of common-law and newly created rules)
Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (1959) (explaining the judicial duty to declare and apply general maritime law)
Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Sw. Marine, 194 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 1999) (gross negligence voids contractual limitations in maritime contracts)
Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003) (on evidentiary standards at summary judgment)
Christensen v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 279 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 2002) (reasonable care standard in maritime negligence)
Yamah Motor Corp. U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) (federal maritime law supplemented by compatible state law)