We are justifiably proud of the work we have done that has resulted in published decisions, a number of which are referenced in the list below.
We offer the following examples to you as a ready means to judge our capabilities for yourself:
- Bordeaux Wine Locators Inc. v. Matson Navigation Co., 185 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 1999) (package limit case limiting carrier’s liability on $700,000 loss to $500).
- Seaspan International Ltd. Limitation Proceedings, 172 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 2001 AMC 2366 (W.D. Wash. 2001) (complex limitation case involving multiple issues – this decision concerned with fund amount and whether barge was “offending” vessel).
- Moe v. Key Bank, 2000 AMC 2651 (W.D. Wash. 2000) (vessel owner’s attempt to sue lender for damages under Jones Act and general maritime law claiming lender was owner pro hac vice).
- Fireman Fund Insurance Co. v. Alaskan Pride Partnership, 1994 AMC 2369 (W.D. Wash. 1994) (hull coverage litigation arising from mysterious sinking of crabbing vessel in Alaska).
- Strok v. Northern Jaeger, 1993 AMC 1290 (W.D. Wash. 1992) (medical causation for abdominal complaints required in Jones Act case).
- Coast to Coast Seafood v. Assurances Generales, 112 Wn. App. 624, 50 P.3d 662 (2002) (cargo insurance coverage litigation arising out of fraud by seller of 24 containers that were to have carried shrimp).
- Kimta AS v. Royal Insurance Company, 102 Wn. App. 716, 9 P.3d 239 (2000) (cargo insurance coverage litigation involving “free of capture and seizure” clause and war risks provisions arising out of Russian government seizure and forfeiture of $3 million seafood cargo carried on Russian vessel chartered to Japanese interests).
- Wolstein v. Yorkshire Insurance Co., 97 Wn. App. 201, 985 P.2d 400 (1999) (marine builder’s risk coverage litigation arising out of inability of shipyard to complete mega yacht due to bankruptcy).
- Berg v. Fourth Shipmore Associates, 879 F. Supp. 1061, 1995 AMC 1245 (W.D. Wash. 1995), aff’d 82 F.3d 307, 1996 AMC 1591 (9th Cir. 1996) (rejecting Jones Act seaman’s contention that he was entitled to unearned wages for twelve months).
- Estate of Ludahl v. Seaview Boatyard, Inc., 809 F. Supp. 825, 1995 AMC 440 (W.D. Wash. 1994) (Seaman’s wrongful death case in vessel sinking).
- Certain Underwriter’s at Lloyds, London v. Inlet Fisheries, Inc., 389 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (D. Alaska 2005) (summary judgment granted in favor of Lloyds on the basis that the insured breached its obligation of utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei) and holding that the doctrine of utmost good faith applies in the context of vessel pollution insurance).
- Apex Oil Co., Inc. v. United States, 208 F.Supp.2d 642, 2002 A.M.C. 493 (E.D. La. 2002) (the responsible party was not entitled to reimbursement from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund because it failed to demonstrate that an "Act of God" was the sole cause of an oil spill).
- Smith v. United States, 220 F.Supp.2d 275, 2002 AMC 2322 (S.D. N.Y. 2002) (the Coast Guard's conduct of an inspection of a pontoon vessel and issuance of a Certificate of Inspection are discretionary functions for which the United States has not waived sovereign immunity).
- Lewis v. United States, 2002 AMC 2797 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (the Coast Guard's decisions on the methods and resources to deploy in conducting a search and rescue case are discretionary functions for which the United States has not waived sovereign immunity).
|
