Payments made by shipowner to an injured seaman in excess of its maintenance and cure obligation...
Payments made by shipowner to an injured seaman in excess of its maintenance and cure obligation may not be sought by shipowner from insurer for a third party tortfeasor pursuant to contribution or indemnity where the third party insurer entered into a separate damage settlement with the injured seaman.
STEVEN DURGIN VERSUS CRESCENT TOWING & SALVAGE, INC., ET AL
CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-1602 SECTION "N"
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20126
October 18, 2002, Decided
October 18, 2002, Filed, Entered
DISPOSITION: West of England's Motion in Limine to Strike Crescent's Contribution and Indemnity Claims seeking recovery of payments made above and beyond its legal obligation to pay maintenance and cure was granted.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman sued defendants, a shipowner and the insurer for a third party tortfeasor, for injuries received at sea under the Jones Act. The seaman settled its damage claims with both defendants separately. The shipowner filed a cross-claim against the insurer for contribution and indemnity. The insurer moved to strike the shipowner's claim for payments above and beyond maintenance and cure.
OVERVIEW: The insurer's insured's defective mooring lines popped, striking the shipowner's vessel and injuring the seaman. The shipowner loaned $10,713.11 to the seaman and then paid him $57,897.84 in payments, which could be characterized as temporary partial disability or supplemental wage payments. The insurer did not dispute the shipowner's rights to seek indemnity for maintenance and cure payments, but contended that any other payments made were voluntary and not subject to any right of indemnification. The court agreed, holding that (1) maintenance and cure was the implied contractual right of a seaman who was injured in the service of the ship, regardless of fault, to payments from the shipowner through the time of maximum recovery; (2) the shipowner failed to show the requisite nexus between payments made in excess of its maintenance and cure obligation to the injured seamen and any legal obligation owed by the shipowner, as the payments were made before suit was filed, and the seaman had not pressed an unseaworthiness claim against the shipowner; and (3) the liability for damages was settled by all parties so there was no legal obligation to support the indemnification claim.
OUTCOME: The motion to strike was granted.
