District court properly granted summary judgment to engineer in pier owner's action arising out of collapse of pier by upstream construction work because although pier insurer's transfer of subrogation rights to owner was permissible under state law, furt
IN RE: COMPLAINT OF WEEKS MARINE, INC. AS OWNER OF THE WEEKS 263 LOADLINE DECK BARGE, WEEKS 272 CARFLOAT AND WEEKS 524 GANTRY CRANE, FOR EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY; SOUTH JERSEY PORT CORPORATION, Appellant in No. 06-3586; IN RE: COMPLAINT OF WEEKS MARINE, INC. AS OWNER OF THE WEEKS 263 LOADLINE DECK BARGE, WEEKS 272 CARFLOAT AND WEEKS 524 GANTRY CRANE, FOR EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, S.T. HUDSON ENGINEERS, INC., Appellant in No. 06-4639
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 6384
March 27, 2008, Opinion Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant pier owner challenged orders of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granting summary judgment to appellees, an engineer, a pile driving company, and a construction manager, in actions arising out of the collapse of the owner's piers allegedly caused by pile driving at an upstream construction site where appellees were working. The engineer appealed the denial of its motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions.
OVERVIEW: The company moved to dismiss the owner's strict liability claim, asserting that federal maritime law preempted state law and that pile driving was not an abnormally dangerous activity to which strict liability attached. The district court converted the motion to one for summary judgment and granted it. The engineer sought summary judgment claiming that the owner was precluded from pursuing an action against it premised on the pier insurer's assignment of its subrogation rights. The engineer also sought Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions. The district court granted the motion, noting that the owner asserted that its damages totaled $ 6.3 million and it had recovered $ 7.3 million from a settlement with the insurer. The district court found that although the insurer's transfer of the subrogation rights to the owner was permissible under state law, further recovery by the owner pursuant to the subrogation rights would constitute impermissible double recovery. The district court also denied the engineer's request for sanctions. On appeal, the court discerned no error in the district court's rulings and affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's written opinions.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the district court's judgments.
Bookmark: 
