324 F. Supp. 3d 366
W.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Travelers (Connecticut insurer) issued a marine insurance policy for a 1998 92-foot Hatteras yacht (the Policy) covering Oct 2016–Oct 2017; Ocean Reef was the insured and the Bank (later merged into Centennial) was named loss payee.
- The Policy contained a Captain Warranty and Crew Warranty (requiring a professional captain and professional crew) and a Named Storm Deductible Endorsement raising the deductible for named storms.
- Ocean Reef alleges the Yacht was damaged by Hurricane Irma (Sept 2017); Travelers alleges Ocean Reef breached the warranty conditions and seeks declaratory judgment denying coverage or, alternatively, applying the named-storm deductible, and reimbursement of advance payments made to raise the vessel.
- Ocean Reef and Centennial moved to transfer venue to the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Centennial alternatively sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The parties disputed locus of operative facts (negotiation/issuance of the Policy in New Jersey or Florida; Ocean Reef’s principal place of business: Florida v. Rochester, NY listed on a 2017 annual report) and the location of likely witnesses and documents.
- The Court concluded admiralty jurisdiction was properly invoked and, after weighing the § 1404(a) factors, granted transfer to the Southern District of Florida; Centennial’s jurisdictional dismissal argument was rendered moot; Ocean Reef’s motion to file supplemental evidence was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admiralty jurisdiction applies | Travelers pleaded admiralty under Rule 9(h); therefore admiralty governs | Defendants did not dispute admiralty invocation | Court held admiralty jurisdiction applies and admiralty procedures govern |
| Standard for venue/transfer in admiralty | N/A (proceed under admiralty/§1333) | Defendants moved to transfer under §1404(a); venue analysis merges with personal jurisdiction in admiralty | Court applied §1404(a) transfer test (convenience and interests of justice) |
| Whether transfer to S.D. Fla. is appropriate (convenience of witnesses/parties, locus of operative facts, documents, etc.) | Travelers emphasized Policy issuance/processing in New Jersey and its chosen forum (W.D.N.Y.) | Ocean Reef and Centennial pointed to Florida as site of loss, many non-party witnesses, brokers and performance; Centennial noted many FL branches | Balancing §1404(a) factors, court found locus and witnesses more connected to Florida and transfer appropriate |
| Whether case should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over Centennial | Travelers opposed dismissal; argued venue and jurisdiction proper in W.D.N.Y. | Centennial argued lack of personal jurisdiction | Court declined to address jurisdictional dismissal because transfer under §1404(a) renders that argument moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 822 F.3d 620 (2d Cir. 2016) (marine insurance policies fall within maritime jurisdiction)
- Garanti Finansal Kiralama A.S. v. Aqua Marine & Trading Inc., 697 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2012) (Rule 9(h) requirement to designate admiralty claims)
- D'Amico Dry Ltd. v. Primera Mar. (Hellas) Ltd., 886 F.3d 216 (2d Cir. 2018) (insurance policies covering marine risks fall within maritime jurisdiction)
- Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1960) (§1404(a) protects parties and public from unnecessary inconvenience; applicable in admiralty)
- Filmline (Cross-Country) Prods., Inc. v. United Artists Corp., 865 F.2d 513 (2d Cir. 1989) (burden on movant to make a strong case for transfer)
- N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (clear-and-convincing standard and discussion of transfer factors in admiralty)