View non-flash version
If you watch television, listen to the radio or surf the internet, you have undoubtedly seen, heard or read advertisements using phrases like these from plaintiff attorneys looking for business. And while injured persons are indeed entitled to representation if they are injured due to the negligence of another party or parties, sometimes the melodramatic advertising scripts are a bit over the top, encouraging even the questionably injured to Þ le lawsuits. In past columns, I have focused primarily on U.S Coast Guard licensed mariners involved in Administrative Law proceedings following charges brought against them and their licenses resulting from their involvement in a marine casualty. SpeciÞ cally; they have been charged with negligence for their actions, or lack thereof, which led to a collision with another vessel, a grounding, or allision with a dock or anchored vessel, etc. As discussed previously, if the professional mariner has a license insurance policy from a specialty company such as MOPS, he immediately reports the claim and is assigned a local maritime attorney from the MOPS Legal Network. And, from that time to the Þ nal resolution of the case, he has his own attorney whose sole responsibility is to protect his license up to and sometimes including an appeal to the Commandant.WHEN IN DOUBT ? SUE! But what happens if that same incident leads to a lawsuit for monetary damages being brought by a third-party who claims to have been injured as a result of the licensed marinerÕs negligence? It happens much more frequently than you might think. And, fortunately, most experienced maritime attorneys have the skill and experience to represent the affected mariner in both the Administrative and Civil court venues. In these civil cases, the mariner is often not necessarily the ultimate Òdeep pocketÓ target of the suit, but he will almost certainly be named in the action as the plaintiff and his attorney usually cast a very wide net in their quest for Þ nancial compensation and, in some cases, punitive damages. If the mariner defendant is an employee of a marine transportation company, whether it is an oil company, a tugboat company or a passenger transportation ferry, the real target is not him but rather that deep pocket corporate entity. One thing is certain: The outcome of the marinerÕs Administrative Law case, i.e. the negligence proceedings against his U.S.C.G. license, will either signiÞ cantly strengthen or weaken the Civil case linked to the same incident. Perhaps the professional mariners most susceptible to the potentially devastating effects of these civil suits are members of state pilot associations. As independent contractors, they have no Òdeep pocketedÓ employers/companies to rely on. Quite simply, they are on their own. And while some states have ($1,000 to $5,000 limitation of liability) laws in place to protect them, most do not, meaning that in many states the affected pilot is not only responsible for the costs of defending his license, but also responsible for funding his civil defense and, potentially, for paying the full amount of any monetary judgment against him resulting from the plaintiffÕs case. All told, the license defense, civil legal defense costs and indemnity payment total could easily exceed $100,000 É and often more. Not a very pleasant prospect to consider when bankrolling your own defense. The MOPS claim Þ les contain more than a few vivid examples of the Þ nancial, reputational and emotional toll that personal injury lawsuits have on hard-working ship pilots, but I selected one fairly typical case to demonstrate the arduous process. A 24-MONTH ORDEAL This case involved two vessels: a large tanker being piloted on a river outbound to sea and a small privately-owned cabin cruiser with two men onboard Þ shing. The plaintiffs alleged that their small boat, Sea Dog, anchored about 50 yards off the riverbank was impacted by such violent turbulence caused by the passing of the tanker-piloted Avalon Sun that both passengers were thrown about, resulting in serious injuries to the boat owner. The primary plaintiffÕs attorney speciÞ cally alleged that Òthe incident was caused by one or more negligent acts and/or omissions on the part of the defendants, its agents, vice principals and/or employeesÓ (including the non-employee pilot). ÒSaid negligent acts were a proximate cause of personal injury to plaintiff. As a result of the incident, plaintiff suffered a fractured skull and INSURANCECivil Suits Can Sink a Professional Mariner?s Assets By Randy O?Neill?Have you been injured by the negligence of others?? ?Do you know your rights?? ?You won?t pay a dime unless we make a Þ nancial recovery.? ?They have insurance company lawyers; you need someone in your corner.? 22 MNOctober 2012MNOct2012 Layout 18-31.indd 22MNOct2012 Layout 18-31.indd 2210/2/2012 9:34:46 AM10/2/2012 9:34:46 AM
