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

Bruner v. Knudsen

A longshoreman, injured on a dock, filed both admiralty and civil actions seeking recovery after a workers' compensation settlement. The respondent moved to dismiss these actions, arguing they were barred by the Texas two-year statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches. The central legal issue was whether the statute of limitations was tolled during the pendency of the workers' compensation proceeding. Citing established Texas appellate court precedents, the court concluded that the statute was indeed tolled during that period. Consequently, the respondent's motion to dismiss was denied, allowing the complainant's actions to proceed.

Longshoreman injuryAdmiralty claimCivil claimStatute of limitationsDoctrine of lachesTollingWorkers' compensationTexas lawPersonal injuryMotion to dismiss
References
5
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 The court granted dismissal for the main barge, ET-715, ruling it was a 'dead ship' withdrawn from navigation.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. 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

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

Swogger v. Waterman Steamship Corp.

The case addresses motions to dismiss third-party complaints filed by Sea-Land Service, Inc. and Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. The underlying action concerned personal injuries and wrongful death of David D. Swogger due to asbestos exposure while working as a marine engineer. The third-party complaints sought indemnity and/or contribution from manufacturers of asbestos products, shipyards that installed them, and other shipowners, arguing their negligence created the unsafe conditions. The central legal question was whether federal admiralty law applied, which would allow these claims, or if New York's General Obligations Law § 15-108 barred them. The court determined that admiralty jurisdiction was established, satisfying both the 'locality' and 'maritime nexus' requirements by focusing on the injured party's maritime activities. Consequently, federal admiralty law governs, denying the third-party defendants' motions to dismiss.

Jones ActMaritime LawAdmiralty JurisdictionAsbestos ExposurePersonal InjuryWrongful DeathMesotheliomaIndemnificationContributionThird-Party Action
References
25
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

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

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

Kreatsoulas v. Freights of the Levant Pride & the Levant Fortune

This admiralty action, brought by Peter Kreatsoulas, involves a $500,000 loan made to Levant Line, a steamship company, which is now in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The loan was secured by personal guaranties from five individuals and an assignment of freights from the Owners of the vessels LEVANT PRIDE and LEVANT FORTUNE. The Personal Guarantors moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the contracts were not maritime. The court concluded that neither the personal guaranty nor the freight assignment contracts fell under federal admiralty jurisdiction, as they were too attenuated from maritime interests. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was granted, and the action was dismissed without prejudice.

Admiralty LawMaritime JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal GuarantyLoan AgreementPromissory NotesAssignment of FreightsMotion to DismissPendent Party JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
References
25
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 59 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