RLB Contracting, Inc. v. Butler
773 F.3d 596
5th Cir.2014Background
- On July 1, 2011 a fishing boat struck a floating dredge pipe connected to RLB’s vessel Jonathan King Boyd; several occupants were injured and a child (S.B.) was killed. Coast Guard investigated.
- Counsel for the Butlers (claimants) exchanged multiple pre-suit letters/emails with RLB’s counsel between July 26, 2011 and June 14, 2012, discussing preservation of evidence, mediation, gathered evidence (photos, PTSD, bystander claims), venues, and imminent filing.
- Mark Butler filed a Texas state-court suit on June 14, 2012; RLB was served July 2, 2012.
- RLB filed a federal limitation-of-liability action on December 28, 2012 seeking to limit liability to the vessel’s $750,000 value; the Butlers moved to dismiss as untimely under the Limitation Act’s 6-month written-notice rule.
- The district court (adopting a magistrate’s R&R) converted the motion to summary judgment, found the pre-suit correspondence supplied written notice more than six months before RLB filed, and dismissed RLB’s limitation action as time‑barred; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-suit letters can constitute “written notice” under the Limitation Act | Butlers: yes; the aggregated correspondence shows a reasonable possibility of a claim and of damages > vessel value | RLB: no; letters lacked explicit demand, detailed allegations, or the “magic words” of a claim | Held: Yes; letters (viewed in aggregate) can constitute written notice and did here |
| Whether the correspondence showed a “reasonable possibility” a claim existed | Butlers: exchanges about mediation, evidence, venues, and imminent filing show a pending claim | RLB: communications were too vague, did not clearly assert blame or specific claims | Held: The total tenor of the correspondence made the reasonable possibility of a claim apparent |
| Whether correspondence showed a “reasonable possibility” damages would exceed $750,000 | Butlers: severity (death of child, serious injuries) made excess of $750,000 reasonably possible even without a dollar demand | RLB: absence of a numeric demand and disputable defenses (contributory negligence) made excess unlikely | Held: Death/serious injuries supported a reasonable possibility damages > $750,000; any uncertainty falls on the owner |
| Whether six‑month jurisdictional deadline was met | Butlers: notice occurred by June 14, 2012, so RLB’s Dec 28 filing was untimely | RLB: did not have timely written notice until service or when suit was filed | Held: Notice was given by June 14, 2012 at the latest; limitation action untimely and dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Eckstein Marine Serv. L.L.C., 672 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2012) (articulates and applies the “reasonable possibility” standard for notice and places uncertainty risk on vessel owner)
- Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (U.S. 2001) (Limitation Act allows owner to limit liability to vessel value)
- Complaint of Tom‑Mac, Inc., 76 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 1996) (discusses written‑notice requirement under the Limitation Act)
- Doxsee Sea Clam Co. v. Brown, 13 F.3d 550 (2d Cir. 1994) (endorses broad, flexible review of pre‑suit letters and examining their whole tenor)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Cailleteau, 869 F.2d 843 (5th Cir. 1989) (six‑month rule aims to force prompt action by shipowner to obtain limitation protections)