CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Magana v. Hammer & Steel, Inc.

The plaintiffs, Rodrigo and Maria Magana, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Robert B. Miller & Associates (barge owner), Hammer & Steel, Inc. (steel supplier), and Poston Industrial Maintenance Company, Inc. (coating applicator) after Rodrigo Magana was severely injured by a falling chunk of concrete while unloading a steel piling sheet from a barge in the Houston Ship Channel on January 4, 2001. Defendants Miller and Hammer filed motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the claims lacked admiralty flavor. The Court, presided over by District Judge Kent, denied both motions. While finding that 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) and Article III admiralty jurisdiction were not directly applicable, the Court determined it had jurisdiction over Miller via the Admiralty Extension Act (AEA), 46 App. U.S.C. § 740, because the injury was caused by a vessel or its appurtenance (the concrete). Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 was found for the claims against Hammer and Poston due to their relation to the claims against Miller. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint to specify the governing law for each cause of action against each defendant.

Personal InjuryAdmiralty LawMaritime JurisdictionLongshoremenLHWCAAdmiralty Extension ActSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissNegligenceShip-side Accident
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Complaint of Wepfer Marine, Inc. for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability

Wepfer Marine, Inc. filed a petition to limit liability after Jose Ramon Gonzalez was injured during barge demolition. Gonzalez and his wife, along with Liberty Mutual, sued Wepfer in state court, leading Wepfer to seek federal limitation of liability. Claimants moved to dismiss the federal action, citing lack of admiralty jurisdiction due to the barge's 'dead ship' status and untimeliness of Wepfer's petition. The court granted dismissal for the main barge, ET-715, ruling it was a 'dead ship' withdrawn from navigation. However, it denied dismissal concerning the crane barge, finding potential causation through a broken crane cable, thereby retaining jurisdiction for that aspect. The court also found Wepfer's petition timely, as prior correspondence from claimants did not constitute sufficient written notice to trigger the statutory six-month filing period.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawLimitation of Liability ActVessel StatusDead Ship DoctrineAdmiralty JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)TimelinessWritten Notice of Claim
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Compagnie Maritime Belge (Lloyd Royal) S.A. v. United Terminals, Inc.

The plaintiff, a vessel owner, sought indemnity from the defendant stevedoring company for funds paid to settle personal injury claims of two longshoremen injured on shore while unloading a container. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that admiralty and maritime jurisdiction does not cover shore-side accidents. The court denied the motion, clarifying that this action was for indemnity, grounded in a breach of the warranty of workmanlike service implicit in a maritime stevedoring contract. Therefore, the court concluded that the suit fell within its admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, citing established precedents. Additionally, the court noted that the action, though filed in 1977, was not barred by the 1972 amendments to the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act because the injuries occurred prior to the amendments' effective date.

Admiralty lawMaritime jurisdictionIndemnity actionStevedoring contractWarranty of workmanlike serviceLongshoremen injuryShore-side accidentMotion to dismissSubject matter jurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
9
Case No. 1:96-CV-337
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 1998

Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United States

Seaman Christopher Gray sustained injuries at the Chickamauga Lock and Dam. Serodino, Inc., Gray's employer, and its insurer, Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, initiated a lawsuit against the United States of America and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, seeking contribution or indemnity related to Gray's injuries. The plaintiffs asserted admiralty jurisdiction over their claims. The United States filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the administrative filing requirement of the Admiralty Extension Act and that Gray's underlying admiralty claim against Serodino did not confer admiralty jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims against the United States. Consequently, the court granted the United States's Motion for Summary Judgment, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Admiralty jurisdictionSovereign immunitySuits in Admiralty ActAdmiralty Extension ActContributionIndemnificationSummary judgmentJones ActMaritime lawNavigable waters
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schwartz v. M/V GULF SUPPLIER

Peter Schwartz, a seismic gun mechanic, was recruited by Seistech Offshore to work in Texas and was subsequently injured in Ingleside, Texas, during the outfitting of a vessel. Schwartz filed an admiralty tort case against Seistech Offshore, Geo Marine Limited, and Petro-Tech Peruana, S.A., alleging negligence, unseaworthiness, and other claims. Seistech Offshore moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing insufficient contacts with Texas. The Court denied Seistech's motion, finding that specific jurisdiction existed because Seistech purposefully availed itself of conducting activities in Texas. The Court also concluded that requiring Seistech to litigate in Texas comported with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Additionally, the Court held that Seistech had waived its personal jurisdiction defense by asserting it in a dilatory manner on the eve of trial.

Personal JurisdictionAdmiralty LawTort LawNegligenceUnseaworthinessSafe Place to WorkLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActGross NegligenceMotion to DismissDue Process
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lingo v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.

Plaintiff, a marine engineer, filed a personal injury action alleging an asbestos-related disease contracted while at sea, suing eleven asbestos manufacturers/suppliers and seven vessel owners. The core issue was subject matter jurisdiction, specifically admiralty jurisdiction for asbestos claims involving seamen. The court, presided by Judge Sifton, examined the 'maritime locality plus nexus to maritime activity' test and Second Circuit precedent from Keene Corp. While acknowledging arguments for admiralty jurisdiction due to the plaintiff's seaman status and unique shipboard exposure, the court felt bound by Keene's focus on the defendants' activities and product nature, compelling it to initially deny admiralty jurisdiction over the manufacturing defendants. However, the court ultimately exercised pendent party jurisdiction, allowing all claims against both manufacturer and shipper defendants to proceed together in federal court. Consequently, the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction were denied.

Asbestos litigationMarine engineerPersonal injuryAdmiralty tort jurisdictionSubject matter jurisdictionPendent party jurisdictionSeaman's claimsMaritime activityFederal CourtsRule 12(h)(3)
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heim v. City of New York

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting admiralty jurisdiction for personal injuries sustained after falling into a pier hole in Staten Island while preparing to load a vessel. The defendants included The City of New York (pier owner), George W. Rogers Construction Corporation (general contractor), Ocean Burning, Inc. (vessel owner), and S.A.S. Equipment Company, Inc. (demolition contractor). The plaintiff alleged negligence by all defendants, particularly against Rogers for placing the vessel alongside the pier without warning of hazards. The court examined whether admiralty jurisdiction applied under 46 U.S.C. § 740, which extends jurisdiction to injuries 'caused by a vessel on navigable water' even if consummated on land. The court found no admiralty jurisdiction, concluding that the injury was a 'classic non-maritime tort' unrelated to traditional maritime activity or the vessel's negligent handling. Claims under the Federal Longshoremen’s Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. § 905(b)) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 were also rejected, as they do not create independent causes of action or extend jurisdiction in this context. Consequently, the motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction were granted, without prejudice to state court proceedings.

Admiralty JurisdictionMaritime LawPersonal InjuryPier AccidentFederal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPendent JurisdictionTort LawVessel Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Guerrant

This memorandum and opinion addresses a case where a plaintiff's forklift was dropped into the Galveston Yacht Basin due to a crane boom collapse, leading to an admiralty action. The central issue is whether admiralty tort jurisdiction can be based solely on the locality of the tort or if a substantive maritime connection is required. The court dismisses the action, finding no connection between the incident and maritime commerce or navigation, thus ruling that locality alone is insufficient to establish admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333. It emphasizes that a maritime connection is crucial for jurisdiction to align with the statute's purpose of uniformity in maritime law, aiming to simplify jurisdictional issues and avoid fragmented litigation.

Admiralty lawMaritime tortJurisdictionLocality testMaritime connection testFederal courtsStatutory constructionJudicial administrationCrane accidentForklift accident
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J. Aron & Co. v. Chown

J. Aron & Co. (Aron) initiated a common law action in New York Supreme Court against the Chown Defendants (insurers) for breach of an insurance policy, seeking a judgment of at least $45 million for crude oil misappropriation. The Chown Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting admiralty jurisdiction. Senior District Judge Milton Pollack ruled that Aron's election to file a common law action in state court, under the Saving to Suitors Clause (28 U.S.C. § 1333(1)), irrevocably prevented the federal court from acquiring original admiralty jurisdiction. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, emphasizing the need to respect state court jurisdiction. Consequently, finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court ordered the action remanded to the New York Supreme Court, New York County.

Admiralty JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionSaving to Suitors ClauseCommon Law ActionMarine Insurance PolicyBreach of ContractSupplemental JurisdictionRemand OrderFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Complaint of Nolty J. Theriot, Inc.

Theriot, a vessel owner, sought to limit its liability for injuries sustained by its crewmembers in a land-based car accident while they were being transported for a crew change. The court determined it lacked admiralty jurisdiction because the accident, occurring on land and about twenty miles from the waterway, bore no substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. While the Jones Act might provide federal admiralty jurisdiction for a seaman's claim, the limitation of liability statute itself does not offer an independent basis for jurisdiction. The court concluded that the purposes of the Limitation of Liability Act were not served by this case as the vessel was not involved in the accident, and thus, Theriot's action was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Admiralty JurisdictionLimitation of LiabilityMaritime LawJones ActSubject Matter JurisdictionLand-based AccidentCrew TransportVessel Owner LiabilityFederal CourtsMotion to Dismiss
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 4,369 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational