Maritime Injury Attorney Blog

Carnival Corp. said "the company has made the decision to voluntarily provide reimbursement to the federal government," following harsh criticism over its use of federal resources for costs related to the high-profile fires aboard the Carnival Triumph in February and Carnival Splendor in 2010. The exact amount of payment is still being determined, though a U.S. senator has said the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy had estimated costs of about $4.2 million for the two incidents combined. In both cases, fire knocked out power to the ships, which were slowly towed to land. The U.S. Coast Guard escorted the Triumph and Splendor; the U.S. Navy delivered tons of food and supplies to the Splendor.

In letters released earlier, it sounded as if Carnival Corp. was refusing to reimburse federal agencies if they sought remuneration. Carnival explained that at no point did they refuse to make a payment and added that no agency had asked them for money. A newspaper article states Carnival has said they will in fact pay the expenses incurred by the United States, including the Navy costs and Coast Guard costs.

Had they refused to pay, U.S. federal taxpayers would have had to foot nearly $780,000 for costs associated with the rescue of the crippled Carnival Triumph cruise ship. Carnival Corp. in the released letters had stated that its policy is to "honor maritime tradition that holds that the duty to render assistance at sea to those in need is a universal obligation of the entire maritime community," a duty that would not include reimbursing the U.S. government for Coast Guard costs.

The letters were in reply to an inquiry by U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, about the Triumph stranding and the cruise line's overall safety record. In his letter Rockefeller, adding that Carnival appears to pay little or no federal income taxes and that "these costs must ultimately be borne by federal taxpayers."

Rockefeller called the response "shameful" and said that he is considering "all options to hold the industry to higher passenger safety standards" which could include a congressional hearing and legislation, perhaps even a closer look at taxation.

In its defense, the cruise line noted that its ships frequently participate in rescues at the Coast Guard's request, including 11 times in the past year in Florida and Caribbean waters. It also mentioned port taxes and fees and other payments and said it paid $16.5 billion in wages to U.S. workers in 2011.

"Every state where our ships call or home port benefits from the dollars spent by cruise lines to buy products and retain services from local businesses," Carnival added.
Carnival has had about 90 incidents aboard its ships that were filed with the Coast Guard in the past five years. Carnival responded that 83 were not considered serious under federal regulations. Three were the Triumph and Splendor mishaps and the capsizing of the Costa Concordia off Italy's coast, which killed 32 people in January 2012. The others were more minor ship collisions, an illness and one passenger who jumped off a ship.

The cruise line said it takes each incident "very seriously" and undergoes reviews and corrective measures when needed, such as a review of safety and emergency response practices across all of Carnival's brands following the Concordia accident. In a separate letter, Carnival Chairman and CEO Micky Arison said the company takes the issues raised by Rockefeller very seriously and "remain committed to the safety and comfort of our guests and we are proud of our ability to provide millions of people with safe, fun and memorable vacation experiences."

But what corrective measures are in place for those guests and cruise ship workers who aren't provided with a safe and fun experience?

It is good of Carnival to step up to address this issue, even if it is only in response to the criticisms. It would be great to see them, as the world's largest cruise ship company, take the lead in the industry toward higher passenger safety standards. The cost of preventing these problems would be priceless in comparison to the very expensive cures they face.

Our firm continues to act as safety advocates for those harmed at sea.

Ever since the tragic incident involving the Costa Concordia, there has been a lot of talk about where any lawsuits would have to be decided. Many lawyers not familiar with maritime law were unaware that in passenger cases, the passenger ticket must be consulted immediately since it contains many time constrains and other limitations, including limiting the place where the lawsuit can be filed. In the case of the Costa Concordia, the ship is operated by the Costa Cruise Line Company out of Italy. The passenger tickets for the Costa Concordia provides for an Italian forum with the applicability of Italian law. This is because the Costa Concordia did not start or end its cruise in a United States port. Otherwise, United States law would govern, and the lawsuit would have to be filed in Broward County Florida, according to the ticket.

Several cases were filed here in Miami, Florida, which have been met with defense motions to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, and improper venue selection due to the passenger ticket requiring suit to be filed in Italy. One of those cases, Scimone v. Carnival Corporation at el, was filed in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. Since Carnival was added as a Defendant, and there are other Defendants other than Costa, the Plaintiff's chose to try to file suit in Miami, Florida. They too were met with a motion to dismiss, but in this particular case the Defendants took a chance and removed the case to the Federal District Court here in the Southern District of Florida. The Plaintiffs moved to remand the case claiming that the Federal Court did not have jurisdiction.

The Federal District judge entered an order granting the motion to remand the case to the State Court. The reason the case was remanded to the State Court is important. Some have believed that the mere fact the Federal judge remanded the case to the State Court was a determination by the Federal judge that Miami is in fact an acceptable forum to hear these cases. However, the Federal judge did not reach that ruling. The Federal judge did not address the Defendants motion to dismiss the case based on form non-conveniens, or the argument that the forum selection clause in the Costa ticket requires suit to be brought in Italy. Instead, the Federal District Court limited its decision to remand the case to a jurisdictional basis. The Defendants had removed the case from the State Court to the Federal Court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. This statutory law allows for the removal of "mass actions", which is a civil action "in which monetary relief claims of a 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the Plaintiffs' claims all have the common questions of law or fact." 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(11)(B)(i)

As for the Class Action Fairness Act being a basis for the Federal Court to have jurisdiction, the Federal Judge ruled that the lawsuit did not have 100 separate different Plaintiffs. In addition, the Plaintiffs did not propose to have all the cases tried jointly. Therefore, this statue did not apply and did not provide a valid basis to remove the case to the Federal Court.

An interesting point about the decision that the CAFA did not provide a basis for removal is that the court had to determine whether the Plaintiffs had engaged in "artful pleading" to deliberately avoid Federal jurisdiction, and if so, whether that was a basis to apply the CAFA in this particular case. The court noted a diversion of opinion among the District Courts on whether artful pleading can avoid the CAFA Federal jurisdiction. This particular judge agreed with the courts that concluded Plaintiffs may skirt the removal under the CAFA and mass actions by artful pleading. Thus, removal was not appropriate under the CAFA.

Continue reading "Federal Judge Grants Motion to Remand to Costa Concordia Plaintiffs" »

The Carnival cruise line's Triumph didn't live up to its name for the 3000 passengers unfortunate to be onboard. The ship can be seen getting towed to port, with a ship full of backed up sewage and other disease producing conditions.

Passengers will have to monitor their health over time as they have been exposed to not only the fear of a fire onboard, and loss of power, but also they have exposed to conditions that can lead to serious illnesses and disease.

The cruise became a nightmare for everyone, not a triumph. This incident is yet another in a long string of mishaps and disasters onboard cruise ships, once believed to me a totally safe and fun filled way of going on a vacation. Recent events have raised questions about the safety of cruise ships.

The NTBS is investigating the fire. Lets not lose sight of the fact that everyone is very lucky there were not more serious consequences from a fire onboard a mega cruise ship plying the high seas. It is very dangerous to be without power and a slave to the rough seas, but a fire onboard can lead to the loss of lives. I had the unfortunate task of representing hundreds of family members who lost their love ones onboard a cruise ship during a fire. The ship, was a sea escape cruise ship, and this did happen many years ago. Since that horrible incident, there have been many improvements in cruise ship safety. Of course, after the Costa Concordia disaster, we know there still needs to be many more improvements. The safety of cruising is in serious doubt these days.

I have been handling maritime cases for 30 years, and the bigger the better is not applicable to the cruise ship industry. With the bigger ships, I have seen many more incidents, including sexual assaults, crimes of different kinds, people going overboard, and an increase in fires, and other disasters.

Protestors in Venice are trying to ban the large cruise ships from entering in and out of the Venice passage, which is only yards from the city's famous piazza, San Marco. Critics have stated that passage of these mega cruise ships poses a risk of environmental damage, as well as the fear of another Costa Concordia disaster which could destroy this historical city. There have been such criticism in the past of the cruise ships sailing in and out of Venice, but the recent Costa Concordia disaster has again brought into the spotlight the potential of enormous environmental damages, as well as the risk of an accident causing disaster.

The critics have been heard as the Italian government has been reported to be examining a new route for the larger cruise ships that visit Venice, which would divert them away from the San Marco area.

The recent protestors caused delays for several passenger cruise ships departing the city, e-trade insider reported. Among the cruise ships that were delayed by the protestors, were the passenger cruise ships, Costa Fascionsa, a 3,000 passenger vessel, the MSC Opera, a 1,712 passenger cruise ship, and the MSC Musica, a 2,536 passenger cruise ship.
The protestors formed in a flotilla of small boats and took to the waterways. Hundreds more lined the waterfront areas.

The images of the Costa Concordia lying on its side in the waters so close to the beautiful island of Giglio in Italy painfully reminds us of the dangers these mega cruise ships pose to their destinations if not properly regulated.

Our office continues to act as safety advocates for those injured or harmed at sea. We are presently representing passengers who suffered harm as a result of the Costa Concordia disaster. We continue to advocate for passenger safety onboard cruise ships and with respect to all aspects of boating. Boating safety is an important goal of each state's legislature. We have seen an increasing number of boating accidents in the Florida waterways, and a great number of accidents and fatalities relating directly to the consumption of alcohol while operating a boat or personal watercraft. There is growing awareness of the need to be aware of boating under the influence and regulating the operation of watercraft within each state. There was a national movement to create awareness of boating under the influence, and its dangers. The waterways continue to be a great way to enjoy yourself, but also can be extremely dangerous.

Accidents that occur on our waterways, including accidents that occur onboard cruise ships, are governed by maritime law. If a passenger is harmed during a cruise, the passenger will face very restrictive terms and conditions imposed upon them by the cruise ship company which are placed into the passenger ticket. A passenger should read very carefully their passenger ticket which outlines all the terms and conditions, including time limitations on bringing a claim for property loss, or personal injury/wrongful death.

It is good that in the recent years we are seeing an increase focus on the impact cruise ships can have on our environment. In the past years I've seen many instances of damages to our environment caused by cruise ships. There has in fact been significant penalties and fines imposed on different cruise ship companies as a result of causing environmental damages, and attempting to cover up their actions.

Let's hope the Italian government is successful in its efforts to keep these mega cruise ships from endangering such a historic and beautiful city.

Cruise ships are finally showing improvements in their safety measures since the Costa Concordia disaster, as can be seen in an article published earlier today in USA today titled "Elderly cruiser kicked off Seabourn ship for skipping drill."

An 84-year- old woman, along with her 90-year-old husband, was kicked off the Seabourn Sojourn this week. The woman refused to attend the mandatory safety drill that begins at the start of each cruise. According to the article, this was the second leg of a three-part trip for the couple, who had already attended a safety drill on the earlier part of the trip. The husband attended the drill but the wife claimed she was not feeling well.

This was not the first incident reflecting stricter cruise ship policies. At the end of January, Holland America kicked a passenger off its ship for the same reason. The stricter policies follow the Costa Concordia disaster. On that ship, there were almost 700 passengers who had not attended a safety drill practice. Thirty two deaths occurred as result of the capsizing of the cruise ship.

As stated in the USA today article, "under rules established by the International Maritime Organization, a United Nations agency, passenger ships must hold passenger safety drills within 24 hours of embarkation. After the accident, major cruise lines around the world announced they always will hold safety drills immediately after embarkation before ships set sail." Before the Costa Concordia, some companies waited until after the ship already starting the cruise, as was the case with Costa cruises and the Concordia.

Our Miami based maritime lawyers assist crew and passengers who have been harmed at sea.

It was recently reported in Rome that cruise ships are being asked to resume their ''sail-by salutes.'' It stopped after the Costa Concordia disaster, which occurred while the captain was carrying out a "salute" in January of this year. According to an article published in the Telegraph titled "Calls for cruise ship 'sail by salutes' to resume after Costa Concordia tragedy," salutes should be allowed ''safely and securely as it was fundamental to the tourist trade which Italy relies upon, especially in the summer, when it has more than 40 million visitors a year." According to the article, tourism chiefs and hotel bosses are making this request to the cruise industry. They let some time pass since the tragic disaster and are now requesting this practice be resumed.

After the Costa disaster, cruise ships have been criticized for a practice that appears to be more common than was known when we first learned of the Costa Concordia disaster. The cruise ship company, Costa, continues to deny the captain had the permission to do the "salute" or that it was common practice. Notwithstanding the tragedy that occurred with the capsizing of the Costa Concordia, the President of the Federation of Hotel owners of Ischia ,Ermando Mennella, said that "the inchino (salute) should be allowed to continue but obviously with safety and security guaranteed for all. It is fundamental for tourism especially to an island like Ischia and if it does not continue then it will have severe economic repercussions and cost jobs in the long run. For many years now cruise ships and mega yachts have been sailing past Ischia, which has helped promote our island in times of economic crisis and last summer alone more than 7,500 cruise ship passengers came ashore."

The defense of the salute maneuver comes after Italian maritime regulations have restricted the cruise ships to no closer than five nautical miles to shore.

After the Costa incident, CEO Pierluigi Foschi also defended salutes, saying it is a necessary part of cruising and benefits the cruise experience. He forgets 32 people are dead because of this salute and two bodies are still missing from the tragic capsizing.

The towing of the Costa Concordia will start next month. It will cost more than 300 million dollars. In addition Costa Cruises just released a new ship called the Costa Fascinosa. I hope they will figure out a way to make the cruise enjoyable, and to showcase the island of Ischia without jeopardizing the lives of thousands.

Our firm continues to act as safety advocates for those harmed at sea. We are maritime lawyers based in Miami, Florida, and handle all types of cruise ship and boating incidents.

Some recently interesting developments in the maritime law field.

It was reported that there was a large settlement reached in the case involving a Philadelphia duck boat that was involved in a collision in the Delaware River. The collision caused the boat to sink in the year 2010, killing two Hungarian students who drowned when the amphibious watercraft sank after being struck by a 250-foot barge that was being pushed by a tugboat. The case was pending in a federal court where the owners of the vessels were seeking to take advantage of an outdated and harsh maritime law called Limitation of Liability. The owners of the vessels were seeking to limit their exposure to the value of the vessels after the collision, which was reported to be approximately $1.8 million. However, the settlement is reported to have been $17 million.

The Limitation of Liability law was enacted more than 150 years ago, and remains part of the maritime law of the United States. This federal statute simply has no place in today's maritime world. The Limitation of Liability Act (LOLA) was brought into focus after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion incident that killed nine maritime workers. This ancient and archaic law allows the vessels to limit their liability to the post-voyage value of their vessel. Transocean was relying on LOLA to limits its liability for the Deepwater disaster to $27 million.

In the case involving the duck boat, the amphibious vessel was plowed over by a 250-foot barge being pushed by a tugboat in Philadelphia, and the owners were trying to limit their liability to $1.7 million.

The application of the Limitation of Liability Act results in harsh consequences, and hopefully our Congress will recognize this at some point in time.

Continue reading "Cruise Ship Law News Update" »