In re: Genesis Marine LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN RE GENESIS MARINE, LLC CIVIL ACTION

NO. 24-2881

SECTION: “G”(2)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is Claimant Brandon Darrow’s (“Darrow”) Motion for Summary

Judgment on the issue of timeliness of the limitation complaint filed by Limitation Petitioner

Genesis Marine, LLC (“Genesis”).1 In Darrow’s motion, he argues the limitation action filed by

Genesis was untimely considering it was filed more than six months after Genesis admitted there

existed a reasonable possibility Darrow’s damages would exceed the value of Genesis’s vessel,

the M/V ANACONDA.2 Genesis counters by asserting it made no judicial admission of the

potential value of Darrow’s damages, and Darrow did not provide any indication damages could

exceed the vessel’s worth until mid-2024, making the limitation action filed in December 2024

timely.3 After reviewing the motion, the memoranda in support and opposition, the applicable

law, and the record, this Court grants summary judgment in favor of Darrow.

1 Rec. Doc. 11.

2 See Rec. Doc. 11-1.

3 See Rec. Doc. 24.

I. Background

This case arises out of Genesis’s Complaint for Exoneration from or Limitation of

Liability (“limitation action”) filed on December 13, 2024.4 Genesis claims the limitation action

was “filed within six months from the date [Genesis] received first written notice of a limitable

claim because in August 2024, Darrow made a settlement demand of $22,000,000.”5 Genesis

further asserts the value of its vessel interest on the date of the accident, reflected in the M/V

ANACONDA and Barges GM 1006 and GM 5040, did not exceed the sum of $12.5 million.6

Based on the limitation action and claims made within, this Court issued an Order Approving

Genesis’s Security and Ad Interim Stipulation and Directing Issuance of Notice to Claimants and

Restraining Prosecution of Claims.7

On February 14, 2025, Darrow filed an Answer and Claim in Limitation.8 On February

18, 2025, Darrow filed this Motion for Summary Judgment on the Timeliness of Genesis’s

limitation action.9 On February 19, 2025, Genesis filed a Motion to Continue the Submission

Date of the Motion for Summary Judgment,10 which was denied by this Court on February 20,

2025.11 Genesis filed its Opposition on February 25, 2025.12 Darrow filed his Reply on March 3,

4 Rec. Doc. 1.

5 Id. at 3.

6 Id. at 4.

7 Rec. Doc. 7.

8 Rec. Doc. 10.

9 Rec. Doc. 11.

10 Rec. Doc. 12.

11 Rec. Doc. 19.

12 Rec. Doc. 24.

2025.13

II. Parties’ Arguments

A. Darrow’s Arguments in Support of his Motion

In his Motion, Darrow argues the evidence “establishes Genesis received written notice

of a claim subject to limitation reasonably possibly exceeding its vessel interest well over two

years prior to its December 13, 2024, filing” of this limitation action.14 Because Genesis received

this written notice more than six months before filing the limitation action, Darrow asserts

Genesis’s limitation action was untimely.15 Darrow asserts Genesis’s December 13, 2024,

limitation action “can only be deemed timely if it did not receive written notice sufficient to

apprise it of a reasonable possibility of a claim exceeding the vessel’s value until sometime in the

six months preceding its federal court filing––i.e., sometime after June 13, 2024.”16

Darrow claims Genesis cannot deny it had definitive written notice of Darrow’s personal

injury claim and that the claim had a reasonable possibility to exceed Genesis’s vessel interests

long before June 13, 2024.17 Darrow submits he filed his original state court Petition for damages

on December 23, 2021, and it served on Genesis through its registered agent on January 19,

2022.18 Darrow represents he filed a Supplemental and Amended Petition for Damages on July

12, 2022 and it was served on July 18, 2022.19 Darrow argues, even though the Petition did not

13 Rec. Doc. 34.

14 Rec. Doc. 11-1 at 16.

15 See id.

16 Id. at 17.

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 Id.

include a specific statement of damages sought,20 Darrow outlined he could not return to work

due to Genesis’s negligence and the vessel’s unseaworthiness.21 Crucially, Darrow points to a

sentence in Genesis’s Answer, filed in state court on August 8, 2022, which reads:

[T]he amount of damages sued for in the Petition herein greatly exceeds the

amount or value of Genesis’s interests in the M/V ANACONDA, and her freight

then pending, if any; Genesis accordingly invokes the benefits of the provisions of

the Revised Statutes of the United States of America and the acts amendatory

thereof and supplemental thereto in limitation of the liability of shipowners.22

Darrow claims this statement is a “judicial admission,” putting the question beyond contention.23

Darrow claims the statement meets the criteria to qualify as a judicial admission, as the statement

was: “(1) made in a judicial proceeding; (2) contrary to a fact essential to the theory of recovery;

(3) deliberate, clear, and unequivocal; (4) such that giving it conclusive effect meets with public

policy; and (5) about a fact on which judgment for the opposing party can be based.”24

Considering these factors, Darrow contends Genesis’s statement that the damages “greatly

exceed” the value of the vessel owner’s interest should be found to have started the six month

clock for Genesis to file a limitation action.25 Darrow contends the six month clock started to run

the day the Answer was filed, which was August 8, 2022, making Genesis’s December 13, 2024,

limitation action untimely.26

Darrow states, even if Genesis’s statement in the Answer is not considered dispositive,

20 See id. at 18.

21 Id. at 19.

22 Id. (citing Rec. Doc. 11-27 at 4).

23 Id. at 20–21.

24 Id. at 20 (citing Jonibach Mgmt. Trust v. Wartburg Enter., Inc., 750 F.3d 486. 491 n.2 (5th Cir. 1990)).

25 Id. at 22.

26 See id.

the record is “replete with incontrovertible evidence establishing Genesis’s six-month time bar

was triggered long before June 13, 2024.”27 According to Darrow, Genesis “extensively litigated”

this case and was “indisputably” aware of how severe Darrow’s injuries were, including his

permanent disability, multiple surgeries, young age and substantial loss of future earning

capacity, future surgeries, psychological symptoms, and substantial pain and suffering, among

other injuries.28

B. Genesis’s Arguments in Opposition to the Motion

In Opposition, Genesis argues, at minimum, there is a genuine factual dispute regarding

when Genesis was first put on notice that Darrow’s claim might reasonably exceed the value of

the interest Genesis had in the M/V ANACONDA.29 Genesis argues the first time it was aware

Darrow could reasonably claim more than the value of the vessel was on August 21, 2024, when

Darrow demanded Genesis pay over $20 million to settle the case, which was over the value of

the vessel at $12.5 million.30 Genesis asserts, because August 21, 2024, was the first time Genesis

was aware of a “reasonable possibility” of Darrow’s claim exceeding the value of the vessel,

Genesis’s December 13, 2024, limitation action was timely because it was within the six month

window.31

Genesis argues its statements in the Answer that Darrow cites were “boilerplate”

affirmative defense raised in state court and simply an allegation, not a judicial admission that

27 Id. at 23.

28 Id. at 25.

29 Rec. Doc. 24 at 9.

30 Id. at 10.

31 See id. at 11.

can be used as evidence to support summary judgment.32 Genesis avers a judicial admission is a

“formal concession in the pleadings or a stipulation by a party or counsel that is binding on the

party making it[,]” arguing the statement is not binding on Genesis.33 Genesis claims judicial

admissions can only be found in the case in which they are made, and the statement at issue was

raised in a separate suit in state court.34 Genesis further argues an affirmative defense cannot be

a “judicial admission because it is not a factual assertion with the effect of withdrawing a fact

from contention.”35 In fact, Genesis argues, because limitation of liability is a legal theory, it is

not a fact that can be admitted or waived at all.36

Lastly, Genesis contends, until August 2024, nothing in Darrow’s state court pleadings or

discovery or medical documentation gave rise to a reasonable possibility that his claims might

exceed $12.5 million, the value of the vessel.37 At minimum, Genesis maintains, there is a genuine

dispute of material fact on the issue of when Genesis first received written notice giving rise to

the reasonable possibility that Darrow’s claim could exceed $12.5 million, and, considering it is

a fact-intensive inquiry, the question should not be handled at the summary judgment stage.38

C. Darrow’s Arguments in Reply to Genesis’s Opposition

In Reply,39 Darrow points out Genesis admits it specifically stated in its answer on August

32 Id. at 12.

33 Id. at 13 (citing Mays v. Dir., Off. Of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 938 F.3d 637, 647 (5th Cir. 2019)).

34 Id.

35 Id. at 15 (citing Blankenship v. Buenger, 653 F.App’x 330, 335 (5th Cir. 2016)).

36 Id. at 16.

37 Id. at 17.

38 Id. at 19–20.

39 Rec. Doc. 34.

8, 2022, that the amount of damages greatly exceeded the value of Genesis’s interest in the M/V

ANACONDA.40 Darrow asserts Genesis was required to state material facts upon which its

defenses to Darrow’s claims were based, and thus, Genesis was making an admission of material

fact when it stated the amount of damages greatly exceeds the value of the vessel.41 Darrow claims

Genesis “made this factual statement deliberately and benefitted from this defense because

Louisiana state courts exercise jurisdiction to determine limitation of liability.”42 Darrow claims

Genesis fully intended for the state court to decide the limitation of liability question if the case

went to trial there.43 Darrow avers Genesis cannot have it both ways.44 That is, Darrow argues

Genesis cannot expressly state Darrow’s damages greatly exceeded the value of the vessel in state

court but claim later, here in federal court, it did not have notice the claim had a reasonable

possibility to exceed the value of the vessel.45

Darrow then discusses Vatican Shrimp Co., Inc. v. Solis, in which Darrow argues the Fifth

Circuit recognized Congress’s six-month time bar as a policy aimed at avoiding “abusive

litigation tactics and circuitous action by shipowners[.]”46 Darrow further argues Vatican Shrimp

stands for the proposition that when a vessel owner’s state court answer raises limitation of

liability, there is “no question that the vessel owner failed to comply with the six-month time

40 Id. at 1.

41 Id.

42 Id. at 2.

43 Id.

44 Id.

45 Id.

46 Id. at 3 (citing Vatican Shrimp Co., Inc. v. Solis, 820 F.2d 674, 682 (5th Cir. 1987)).

bar.”47 Darrow asserts these holdings have never been overruled as Genesis claims.48

Darrow further argues there is no genuine dispute of material fact on the issue of whether

Genesis had written notice of a reasonable possibility that Darrow’s claim might exceed the value

of the vessel.49 Darrow claims Genesis’s subjective beliefs and self-serving statements are not

enough to demonstrate Genesis did not have notice of a claim with a reasonable possibility of

exceeding the vessel’s value.50

Darrow points out, on June 24, 2021, Genesis was aware of Darrow’s two prior failed

back surgeries and the need for a third, that it was aware of “foot drop and incontinence,” and it

was aware Darrow urgently needed a lumbar fusion because he was at risk of bilateral leg

paralysis, bowel, bladder, and sexual dysfunction.51 Darrow points to other opinions and surgeries

Genesis was aware of between 2021 and 2023.52 Darrow points to the expert report produced on

January 29, 2024, which made Genesis aware of the need for spinal cord stimulation surgeries

every 5–7 years for the rest of Darrow’s life, as well as other surgeries and rehab and Darrow’s

likely complete loss of his maritime career and substantial loss of future earning capacity.53

Darrow argues Genesis knew Darrow was permanently disabled in April 2024 when Darrow’s

treating physician, Dr. Jagar, was deposed.54 Darrow claims Genesis’s assertion that the August

47 Id. (citing Vatican Shrimp, 820 F.2d at 679).

48 Id.

49 Id. at 4.

50 Id.

51 Id. at 5.

52 Id. at 5–6.

53 Id. at 6–7.

54 Id. at 7.

21, 2024, demand was the first time Genesis had written notice of a reasonable probability of the

damages exceeding the value of the vessel is “sleight of hand to distract from the fact that Genesis

knew all along that the value of the claims exceeded vessel interests as admitted in its answer

years earlier[.]”55 Darrow maintains his belief that allowing Genesis to successfully file their

limitation action at this juncture would “directly contravene[] Congress’s intent of the six-month

time bar.”56

III. Legal Standard

A. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits

demonstrate “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as

a matter of law.”57 To decide whether a genuine dispute as to any material fact exists, the court

considers “all of the evidence in the record but refrain[s] from making credibility determinations

or weighing the evidence.”58 All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving

party.59 Yet “unsupported allegations or affidavits setting forth ‘ultimate or conclusory facts and

conclusions of law’ are insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment.”60

If the entire record “could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party,” then

no genuine issue of fact exists and, consequently, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

55 Id.

56 Id. at 10.

57 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994).

58 Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398–99 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000)).

59 Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Reeves, 530 U.S. at

150).

60 Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985); Little, 37 F.3d at 1075.

matter of law.61 The nonmoving party may not rest upon the pleadings.62 Instead, the nonmoving

party must identify specific facts in the record and articulate the precise manner in which that

evidence establishes a genuine issue for trial.63

The party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of showing

the basis for its motion and identifying record evidence that demonstrates the absence of a genuine

issue of material fact.64 “To satisfy this burden, the movant may either (1) submit evidentiary

documents that negate the existence of some material element of the opponent’s claim or defense,

or (2) if the crucial issue is one on which the opponent will bear the ultimate burden of proof at

trial, demonstrate that the evidence in the record insufficiently supports an essential element of

the opponent’s claim or defense.”65 If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden

shifts to the nonmoving party to “identify specific evidence in the record, and to articulate”

precisely how that evidence supports the nonmoving party’s claims.66 The nonmoving party must

set forth “specific facts showing the existence of a ‘genuine’ issue concerning every essential

component of its case.”67

The nonmovant’s burden of demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact is not satisfied

merely by creating “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,” “by conclusory

61 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting First Nat’l Bank

of Ariz. v. Cites Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968)).

62 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).

63 See id.; Ragas v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998).

64 Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323.

65 Duplantis v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 948 F.2d 187, 190 (5th Cir. 1991) (internal citation omitted).

66 Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 871 (1994); see also Morris

v. Covan World Wide Moving, Inc., 144 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 1998).

67 Morris, 144 F.3d at 380; see also Bellard v. Gautreaux, 675 F.3d 454, 460 (5th Cir. 2012).

allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence.”68 Moreover, the

nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials in its pleadings.69

B. Limitation Action

The Limitation Act of 1851, now cited as 46 U.S.C. § 30529, limits a vessel owner’s

liability to the value of their interest in the vessel. However, Section 30529(a) requires that “[t]he

owner of a vessel . . . bring a civil action in a district court of the United States for limitation of

liability . . . within 6 months after a claimant gives the owner written notice of a claim.”70 “A

written notice of claim sufficient to trigger the filing-period must reveal a ‘reasonable possibility’

that the claim is subject to such limitation.”71 Whether a written notice reveals a “reasonable

possibility” a claim will exceed the value of the interest the limitation petitioner has in a vessel

requires courts to engage in a “fact-intensive inquiry into the circumstances of the case.”72 Two

inquires must be conducted: “(1) whether the writing communicates the reasonable possibility of

a claim, and (2) whether it communicates the reasonable possibility of damages in excess of the

vessel’s value.”73

68 Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

69 Morris, 144 F.3d at 380.

70 46 U.S.C. § 30529(a).

71 Billiot v. Dolphin Services, Inc., 225 F.3d 515, 517 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and citation

omitted).

72 In re Eckstein Marine Service L.L.C., 672 F.3d 310, 317 (5th Cir. 2012) (impliedly overruled on other

grounds by In re Bonvillian Marine Serv., Inc., 19 F.4th (5th Cir. 2021)). In re Bonvillian only overruled In re

Eckstein as far as the In re Eckstein Court held Congress’s six-month time bar was a jurisdictional rule, which, if

violated, stripped a court of its subject matter jurisdiction. In re Eckstein, 672 F.3d at 315. The In re Bonvillian Court

reversed In re Eckstein on that narrow question, holding the six-month time bar is non-jurisdictional and has no

bearing on subject matter jurisdiction. In re Bonvillian, 19 F.4th at 793–94.

73 In re The Complaint of RLB Contracting, Inc., as Owner of the Dredge Jonathan King Boyd its Engine,

Tackle, Gear for Exoneration or Limitation of Liability, 733 F.3d 596, 602 (5th Cir. 2014) (impliedly overruled on

other grounds by In re Bonvillian, 19 F.4th 787) (emphasis in original).

Once a reasonable possibility is raised, “it becomes the vessel owner’s responsibility to

initiate a prompt investigation and determine whether to file a limitation action.”74 When there is

uncertainty as to whether a claim will exceed the value of the vessel, the reasonable possibility

standard places the “risk and burdens associated with that risk on the owner.”75 If “doubt exists

as to the total amount of the claims or as to whether they will exceed the value of the ship the

owner will not be excused from satisfying the statutory time bar since he may institute a limitation

proceeding even when the total amount claimed is uncertain.”76

IV. Analysis

Neither party disputes that there was a reasonable possibility of a claim or, at some point,

there existed a reasonable possibility of damages in this case exceeding Genesis’s interest in the

M/V ANACONDA. What the parties dispute is when that reasonable possibility existed. If, as

Darrow argues,77 a reasonable possibility existed before June 13, 2024, Genesis’s limitation

action filed on December 13, 2024, was untimely. If, as Genesis argues,78 this reasonable

possibility did not become apparent through written notice until August 2024, Genesis’s

limitation action was timely.

The reasonable possibility standard “is not toothless,” but is “not particularly stringent.”79

Darrow is required only to have raised a reasonable possibility the damages sought would exceed

74 In re Eckstein, 672 F.3d at 317.

75 Id. at 318.

76 Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).

77 Rec. Doc. 11-1 at 22–23.

78 See Rec. Doc. 24 at 2.

79 In re Eckstein, 672 F.3d at 317.

the value of the vessel.80 Darrow was never required to state a particular value of damages

sought.81 Once Darrow raised this reasonable possibility, the burden then fell on Genesis to

conduct an investigation and file a limitation action if necessary within six months, with the

burden and risks associated with any uncertainty as to whether a claim would exceed the value of

vessel squarely on the shoulders of the vessel owner, Genesis.82 “In other words, if doubt exists

as to the total amount of the claims or as to whether they will exceed the value of the ship the

owner will not be excused from satisfying the statutory time bar since he may institute a limitation

proceeding even when the total amount claimed is uncertain.”83 The Fifth Circuit has additionally

noted this standard is not one of probability, but of possibility that a claim will result in damages

above a vessel’s worth.84

On December 23, 2021, Genesis was put on notice, through a Petition filed in state court,

that Darrow was seeking recovery of the following categories of damages based on Genesis’s

alleged negligence and the unseaworthiness of the M/V ANACONDA:

a. past, present, and future physical, mental, and emotional pain and suffering;

b. past, present, and future loss of wages, fringe benefits, and wage earning

capacity;

c. past, present, and future disability;

d. past, present, and future mental disability;

e. past, present, and future medical expenses;

f. past and future loss of found;

g. past, present, and future loss of enjoyment of life; and

h. all other special and general damages as will be shown at the trial of this

80 Id.

81 Id.

82 See id.

83 Id. at 318 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

84 In re RLB Contracting, 773 F.3d at 603.

matter.85

The state court Petition was filed over two years before Genesis filed the limitation action in this

Court.

Genesis answered the Petition on August 8, 2022. Before the Answer was even filed,

Genesis admits it knew that Darrow, in Dr. Patterson’s opinion, suffered a “massive disc

herniation which extended caudad from disc space causing severe central canal stenosis,” and

that Dr. Patterson recommended immediate surgery.86 Genesis was additionally aware Darrow

was evaluated by neurosurgeon Dr. Donald Dietze for “ongoing pain bilaterally to the lateral hip,

groin, knee, right thigh, lower leg, ankle, and foot and due to foot drop causing him to fall and

numbness causing him to urinate on himself.”87 Genesis acknowledges Dr. Dietze recommended

lumbar fusion88 and that it occur immediately owing to the “significant risk of falling, developing

cauda aquinia syndrome or bilateral leg paralysis with loss of bowel, bladder, and sexual

function.” 89 Darrow received this surgery on October 19, 2021.90 Genesis furthermore admits it

knew Dr. Andrew Todd’s opinion that Darrow’s injuries were “causally related to the workplace

incident and that all prior surgeries were medically necessary given Darrow’s ‘significant

pathology.’”91 Genesis possessed all of this knowledge after Darrow filed his state court Petition

and before Genesis filed its Answer.

85 Rec. Doc. 11-23 at 3.

86 Rec. Doc. 11-2 at 2. Genesis admits this fact in Rec. Doc. 24-15 at 1.

87 Rec. Doc. 11-2 at 2. Genesis admits this fact in Rec. Doc 24-15 at 2.

88 Rec. Doc. 11-2 at 2. Genesis admits this fact in Rec. Doc. 24-15 at 2.

89 Rec. Doc. 11-2 at 3. Genesis admits this fact in Rec. Doc. 24-15 at 3.

90 Rec. Doc. 11-2 at 3. Genesis admits this fact in Rec. Doc. 24-15 at 3.

91 Rec. Doc. 11-2 at 3. Genesis admits this fact in Rec. Doc. 24-15 at 3.

With knowledge of the above facts, Genesis concedes it filed an Answer asserting the

following on August 8, 2022:

[T]he amount of damages sued for in the Petition herein greatly exceeds the

amount for value of Genesis’s interests in the M/V ANACONDA and her freight

then pending, if any; Genesis accordingly invokes the benefits of the provisions of

the Revised Status of the United States of America and the acts amendatory thereof

and supplemental thereto in limitation of the liability of shipowners.92

The parties debate whether the above is a “judicial admission,” which would have the effect of

binding Genesis to this fact and withdrawing it from contention.93 But whether the above

statement from Genesis is a judicial admission is of no consequence for the purposes of resolving

this motion.

Whether Darrow’s claims amount to over $12.5 million need not be objectively true and

withdrawn from contention for the six-month time bar to have begun. There must simply have

existed a “reasonable possibility,” through written notice, that a claim or group of claims could

exceed the vessel’s value for the time-period to start.94 A finding of a reasonable possibility does

not require a judicial admission that would put the issue out of contention. Genesis’s statement in

the Answer, that the amount of damages claimed by Darrow “greatly exceeds the amount for

value of Genesis’s interests in the M/V ANACONDA and her freight pending[,]”95 coupled with

Genesis’s undisputed knowledge of the serious and developing extent of Darrow’s injuries and

92 Rec. Doc. 11-2 at 3–4. Genesis admits this fact in Rec. Doc. 24-15 at 3.

93 See Martinez v. Bally’s La., Inc., 244 F.3d 474, 476 (5th Cir. 2001) (explaining that a “judicial admission

is a formal concession in the pleadings or stipulations by a party or counsel that is binding on the party making them

. . . . [i]t has the effect of withdrawing a fact from contention.”).

94 Billiot v. Dolphin Services, Inc., 225 F.3d 515, 517 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and citation

omitted).

95 Rec. Doc. 11-27 at 4

required care, satisfies the “not particularly stringent”96 standard of demonstrating a “reasonable

possibility” Darrow’s damages exceeded the value of Genesis’s interest in the M/V

ANACONDA. This was true in August of 2022 when Genesis filed its Answer.

Even if this Court were to assume the evidence provided by Darrow and the statement from

Genesis still left room for doubt on the question of the value of damages in August of 2022, it

was still Genesis’s duty to file a timely limitation action. As the Fifth Circuit held, if “doubt exists

as to the total amount of the claims or as to whether they will exceed the value of the ship the

owner will not be excused from satisfying the statutory time bar since he may institute a limitation

proceeding even when the total amount claimed is uncertain.”97 Considering this burden on

Genesis, it cannot have it both ways––stating in August 2022, in light of the evidence, there was

a definite possibility Darrow’s damages greatly exceeded the interest Genesis had in the M/V

ANACONDA, but now stating there was no reasonable possibility until June 2024.

Moreover, additional facts occurred after the Answer was filed in August 2022, and before

June of 2024, supporting a finding of a reasonable possibility Darrow’s damages would exceed

$12.5 million and thus triggering the six-month window for Genesis to file a limitation action.

Darrow’s condition, and consequently, what Darrow could reasonably be awarded through

damages, only worsened between August 2022 and the beginning of 2024. On April 3, 2023,

Genesis admits it was aware of Dr. Andrew Todd’s supplemental report outlining Darrow’s

ongoing back and leg symptoms resulting from severe nerve damage and the effects of Darrow’s

ongoing treatments.98 Genesis further confirms it received Dr. Dietze’s report on August 1, 2023,

96 In re Eckstein, 672 F.3d at 317.

97 Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).

98 Rec. Doc. 11-2 at 4. Genesis admitted receiving this report in Rec. Doc. 24-15 at 4.

stating Dr. Dietze’s opinion that Darrow was permanently disabled due to “failed back surgery

syndrome,” rendering Darrow unable to return to work.99 Genesis was also aware Darrow

underwent another surgery in September 2023, where Dr. Jolly surgically implanted two lead trial

spinal cord simulators, with surgical implantation of permanent spinal cord simulators in

February 2024.100 In January 2024, Genesis admits it was made aware that Darrow’s experts

estimated Darrow’s loss of wages at approximately $3.5 million and his future medical expenses

were in the range of $1.7 million.101 These damages, totaling over $5 million, only reflect

damages from loss of wages and medical expenses.

In the state court Petition, Darrow additionally alleged entitlement to damages for past,

present, and future physical, mental, and emotional pain and suffering and disability, as well as

loss of enjoyment of life.102 Considering Genesis admitted it knew in August 2023 Darrow was

potentially permanently disabled,103 Genesis possessed information almost a full year prior to

June 2024 that calculation of these “noneconomic” damages could contemplate the rest of

Darrow’s life. While that information does not put the issue beyond doubt Darrow’s damages

could exceed $12.5 million, it must be weighed with Genesis’s own assertion that the value of

damages was above $12.5 million in August 2022 as well as the growing evidence of Darrow’s

injuries. This Court is convinced these additional facts put to rest the question of whether there

existed written notice of a reasonable possibility Darrow’s damages could exceed $12.5 million

99 Rec. Doc. 11-2 at 5. Genesis admits this fact in Rec. Doc. 24-15 at 5.

100 Rec. Doc. 11-2 at 5, 6. Genesis admits this fact in Rec. Doc 24-15 at 5, 6.

101 Genesis admits these facts in Rec. Doc. 24-15 at 6.

102 Rec. Doc. 11-23 at 3.

103 Genesis admits this fact in Rec. Doc. 24-15 at 5.

enough to put the burden on Genesis to file a limitation action before December 13, 2024.

Even with these facts, Genesis claims it only knew of a reasonable possibility of the

damages exceeding $12.5 million when Darrow expressly demanded a $22 million settlement.104

This argument fails. As discussed, Fifth Circuit caselaw makes clear it was Genesis’s burden from

the time the state court Petition was filed to resolve any doubt as to the reasonable possibility of

damages exceeding $12.5 million by filing a limitation action.105 Genesis seems to want to place

a burden on Darrow to have explicitly claimed a value of damages above the value of the vessel

for the limitation action time limit to begin. This burden does not exist.

Lastly, a finding there existed a reasonable possibility of Darrow’s claims exceeding $12.5

million before June 13, 2024, is supported by the purpose of the Limitation Liability Act. In

Vatican Shrimp, the Fifth Circuit explained, prior to the six-month time-bar amendment, “a vessel

owner could delay filing . . . [action] in federal court until the eve of the state court trial.”106

Vatican Shrimp made clear the six-month time-bar was enacted “[i]n response to the problems

this practice caused,” and that the time-bar was intended to force “vessel owner[s] to act more

promptly.”107 Ultimately, the six-month time-bar’s purpose was to eliminate the situation

currently before this Court––a vessel owner filing a limitation action on the eve of state court

trial. Genesis filed its limitation action on December 13, 2024,108 just three months before state

court trial set for March 25, 2025. Again, Genesis claims it was only put on notice Darrow’s

104 Rec. Doc. 24 at 9.

105 In re Eckstein, 672 F.3d at 317.

106 Vatican Shrimp, 820 F.2d at 682.

107 Id. (internal citations omitted).

108 Rec. Doc. 1.

claims could exceed $12.5 million when Darrow demanded Genesis pay $20 million to settle the

case.109 But this ignores Genesis’s clear statement in its Answer, as well as the mounting evidence

of Darrow’s injuries by early 2024, of the reasonable possibility that Darrow’s claim could exceed

$12.5 million. In the end, the Limitation Act makes it Genesis’s duty to act promptly in filing a

limitation action even in the face of doubt of total damages, and Genesis failed to fulfill this duty.

The undisputed evidence in the record demonstrates that this limitation action was not timely

filed.

109 Rec. Doc. 24 at 2.

Y. Conclusion

When reviewing the facts in this case, it is clear there existed written notice of the

reasonable possibility Darrow’s claim could exceed $12.5 million before June 13, 2024,

something Genesis even admitted in the Answers filed in state court in August 2022.1! Once the

reasonable possibility was raised, it was then Genesis’s duty to timely file a limitation action.!"

Considering Genesis did not file a limitation action until December 13, 2024, and written notice

of the claim exceeding $12.5 million existed before June 13, 2024, the undisputed evidence in

the record demonstrates Genesis’s limitation action was not timely filed.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Darrow’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue

of timeliness of the limitation complaint!!? is GRANTED.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this /"? day of March, 2025.

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN

CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 Rec. Doc. 11-27 at 4.

11 Ty re Eckstein, 672 F.3d at 317.

2 Rec. Doe. 11.

20