FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE HELD TO VIOLATE PUBLIC POLICY UNDERLYING THE GENERAL MARITIME LAW AND THE JONES ACT
ALISTAIR J. MACPHAIL, Plaintiff, v. OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. G-01-266
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, GALVESTON DIVISION
170 F. Supp. 2d 718; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17430
October 12, 2001, Decided
October 17, 2001, Entered
DISPOSITION: [**1] Defendant's rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss was denied.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employee scuba diver sued defendant employer marine company pursuant to the General Maritime Law of the United States of America, the Jones Act, specifically, 46 U.S.C.S. ยง 688, and state laws for injuries suffered in the course of his employment as a saturation diver. The employer moved to dismiss the complaint.
OVERVIEW: The employer claimed that the complaint should have been dismissed pursuant to an Australian forum selection clause contained in a release and discharge (Release) previously executed by the parties. The employee claimed that the clause was unenforceable because the employer procured the Release, including the forum selection clause, through fraud and overreaching. The court held that the motion to dismiss pursuant to the forum selection clause fell within the purview of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). Even though the employee had presented affidavits suggesting fraud, coercion, and manifest overreaching by the employer, none of the averments supported a finding that the employee was induced to include the forum selection clause. However, the forum selection clause violated public policy underlying the General Maritime Law and the Jones Act. Specifically, the employee's averments regarding his injuries and the conditions which existed when he signed the Release established that the employee unquestionably fell within the group of plaintiffs that the venerable and strong public policy favoring the rights of seamen was fashioned to protect.
OUTCOME: The company's motion to dismiss was denied.
