22 F. Supp. 3d 153
D.P.R.2014Background
- On July 24, 2011 the M/V Sea Watch sank ~3.4 miles off Humacao, Puerto Rico; 23 persons were aboard, 21 were passengers and all were rescued. Ronald Valledor was at the helm.
- Plaintiffs sued Zurqui, Inc. (d/b/a Sea Watch Divers), Ronald Valledor, Jose & Concepcion Valledor (and their conjugal partnership), and Palmas del Mar Yacht Club & Marina (PDMYC) for maritime negligence and related claims.
- Plaintiffs rely on expert Commander John Deck (supplemental/unsworn report filed after deadlines) who opined Sea Watch was overloaded; defendants’ expert (Captain Paul Simpson) attributed sinking to a hull breach from striking an obstruction.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment (separate motions); defendants also moved to strike plaintiffs’ late expert disclosure. The Court denied the motion to strike as harmless but warned against future noncompliance.
- The Valledor matrimony moved for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of alter-ego/veil-piercing claims against Jose & Concepcion Valledor; PDMYC moved for partial summary judgment denying duty or joint-venture liability.
- Court holdings: denied strike; granted Valledor matrimony and PDMYC motions (claims against PDMYC dismissed with prejudice; claims against Jose/Concepcion dismissed without prejudice); granted in part and denied in part Zurqui/Valledor motion (Alicia Vincenty-Medina’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claims dismissed with prejudice; other claims against Zurqui/Valledor survive).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of plaintiffs’ expert (Commander Deck) | Late supplemental report harmless; expert identity was known and substance disclosed earlier. | Disclosure missed agreed deadlines; exclusion required under Rule 37. | Denied motion to strike; tardy disclosure harmless because defendants knew expert and substance; discovery not reopened. |
| Availability of warranty of seaworthiness/unseaworthiness claim | Plaintiffs framed claim as negligence; seek relief for breach of duty of care. | Warranty of seaworthiness is limited to "seamen"; plaintiffs are not seamen so unseaworthiness claim unavailable. | Plaintiffs conceded non-seaman status; court read claim as negligence and denied summary judgment on seaworthiness ground. |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress (Alicia Vincenty-Medina) | Recovery available under zone-of-danger, relative-bystander, or physical-impact tests because her husband was endangered and she suffered foreseeable distress. | She was not present or in the zone of danger; emotional-distress claim fails as a matter of maritime law. | Court adopted zone-of-danger test for admiralty claims and held Alicia was not in the zone of danger; claim dismissed with prejudice. |
| Causation/breach for maritime negligence against Zurqui/Valledor | Overloading caused sinking (Deck). | Sea Watch sank due to hull breach from striking an unknown obstruction — superseding cause (Simpson). | Competing expert opinions create genuine issues of material fact as to breach and causation; summary judgment denied on maritime tort claim. |
| Alter ego / corporate veil (piercing Zurqui, Inc.) | Plaintiffs point to alleged admission and argue Jose Valledor was true owner; seek to hold individuals liable. | Zurqui, Inc. observed corporate formalities and is a separate entity; no strong evidence to pierce veil. | Applying Puerto Rico law, plaintiffs failed to produce strong evidence; summary judgment granted for Valledor matrimony; claims dismissed without prejudice. |
| PDMYC liability (duty/joint venture/agency) | Marina benefited economically, allowed signage, provided contact info, tacitly represented relation with Sea Watch — should be jointly liable. | PDMYC only leased slips, did not control operations, did not receive commissions for trip, did not act as agent or broker. | No evidence PDMYC exercised control, made representations, or entered joint venture; duty not established; summary judgment granted for PDMYC (claims dismissed with prejudice). |
Key Cases Cited
- The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158 (owner's warranty of seaworthiness concept in maritime law)
- Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009) (discussing limits of unseaworthiness and remedies)
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (passengers/visitors are not seamen; shipowner owes reasonable care to non-crew)
- Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994) (discussion of zone-of-danger test for emotional distress claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard re: scintilla of evidence)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Gulf Weighing Corp., 352 F. Supp. 335 (E.D. La. 1972) (marina that merely leased slips did not owe duty to passengers)
- Peemoller Sultan v. Pleasure Craft Contender, 139 F. Supp. 2d 230 (D.P.R. 2001) (adopting zone-of-danger test for admiralty emotional-distress claims)