Employer's Motion for Summary Judgment Granted against Shipowner's Indemnity...
Employer's Motion for Summary Judgment Granted against Shipowner's Indemnity / Contribution Claim for claim of a Longshore Worker whose injuries were caused by the negligence of the ship's crew despite a safe berth clause in the charter party contract because the Longshore Harbor Workers Compensation Act bars suits for indemnity from a vessel owner against an employer.
MONICA M. HERETICK, Plaintiff, v. AMBERLEY SHIPPING CORPORATION, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL ,INC., (formerly ALLIED SIGNAL, INC.), Third-Party Defendant.
ACTION NO. 4:01cv98
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, NEWPORT NEWS DIVISION
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19859
October 17, 2002, Decided
October 17, 2002, Opinion Filed
DISPOSITION: Third-party defendant's motion to dismiss granted.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff employee filed an action under 46 U.S.C.S. § 740 against defendant vessel owner, alleging that her injuries were caused by the negligence of the ship's crew. The owner filed a third-party complaint for indemnity or contribution against third-party defendant employer. The employer moved to dismiss the third-party complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
OVERVIEW: The employee was injured while assisting in the docking operation of the owner's vessel that was chartered to the employer. After her injury, the employee received benefits under the Longshore Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C.S. § 901 et seq., from the employer. The owner alleged that the employer breached the safe berth clause contained in the charter party contract because it failed to properly train its equipment operators, including the employee, in handling mooring lines, and that this failure created an unsafe berth for the docking ships. This breach of warranty required the employer to indemnify the owner for any judgment against it. The employer argued: (1) the safe berth clause provided no basis for indemnification for personal injuries; and (2) the LHWCA barred suits for indemnity by a vessel owner against an employer. Neither expressly, nor by implication, was the employer obligated to indemnify the owner against personal injury actions. Additionally, because the owner alleged that the employer was negligent only in its role as the employee's employer, not in its role as vessel operator, the LHWCA prohibited the employer from being held liable.
OUTCOME: The employer's motion to dismiss was granted.
