# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Alvarez ex rel. American Home Insurance v. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_1574%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 1988
- **Citation:** 486 U.S. 1023

## Text

8.7 . 5 Supreme Court, U.S.
16 3 FILED
CASE NO. APR 2 1986

IN THE JOSEPH ee JR,

SUPREME COURT
OF THE
UNITED STATES
VIVIAN ALVAREZ, f/u/b/o AMERICAN
HOME INSURANCE COMPANY
Petitioner
V.
MERRILL STEVENS DRY DOCK COMPANY

Respondent

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

WILLIAM B. MILLIKEN, ESQ.

HAYDEN AND MILLIKEN, P.A.
5915 Ponce de Leon Bouelvard
Suite 63

Miami, Florida 33146

(305) 662- 1523

Attorneys for Petitioner

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

ARE FLORIDA STATE COURTS FREE TO
IGNORE PRECEDENTS OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RE-
GARDING EXCULPATORY CLAUSES IN
SHIP REPAIR CONTRACTS WHERE THIS
COURT HAS HELD UNEQUIVOCALLY IN
BISSO V. INLAND WATERWAYS CORP.,
346 U.S. 83, 73 5.0%. 629, 99 L.Ed.

911 (1955) THAT SUCH CLAUSES ARE
VOID IN A CASE IN ADMIRALTY IN-
VOLVING CONSTRUCTION OF A MARI-
TIME CONTRACT ?

BEEREREEREEREESREES=:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....... ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. ..... iil

Orersmume Geewm. «2 se we ee ow 1
og gs a
MUP UUEe UEVULVED ws eee sce ewe 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...... 2
2) a
ee RD) 6) a re |

Gere ereaemee Ur SERVICE . . «s+ 2 « i

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE PAGE

Alcoa Steamship Company v. Charles
Farren,
383 F.2d 46 (Sth Cir. 1967), cert.
denied, 393 U.S. 836, 89 S.Ct. Ill,
a hee. 26 CGT GIRGe «+ « «ees O83

Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp.,
349 U.S. 85, 75, 5.Ct. 629,

99 L.Ed. Sf (3195S) . 2 2 2 so « « §,5,6,7
Edward Leasing Corp. v. Uhlig and
Associates,
785 F.2d 877 (llth Cir. 1986). ... 6,7,8

Eller and Company, Inc. v.
Galapogas Line, S.A.,
493 So.2d 106] (Fla. 3rd DCA 1986). . 6, 7

Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale
Transatlantique,
358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct. 406,
3 L.Ed. 20 SOS (1959). « se ao es | BF

Moragne v. State Marine Lines, Inc.,
398 U.S. 275, 90 S.Ct. 1772. 26
L.6e. 28 339 (ISTO) «6 6 2 ts te ee eet

oe eeeeeeeeeeee a

OPINIONS BELOW

The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for Dade County,
Florida are printed in the Appendix at Page App.
1-20. The Opinion of the District Court of Appeal
of Florida, Third District, is printed in the Appen-
dix at Page App. 2!-30. The District Court of
Appeal of Florida's Denial of Petitioner's Motion for
Rehearing is printed in the Appendix at Page App.
31. The Order of the Supreme Court of Florida is
printed in the Appendix at Page App. 32-33. =
JURISDICTION

The Opinion of the District Court of Appeal
of Florida, Third District, was entered on June
23, 1987. Petitioner's motions for rehearing
and rehearing en banc were denied on August

31, 1987. The Order of the Supreme Court of

Florida denying review was entered on January
5, 1988. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
of the United States is invoked under 28 USC,
Section 2101 (c) and because this case presents
a state appellate court's decision on an important
question of federal maritime law which is in con-

1

PES RS RS RE RRR RR Raa =

flict with applicable decisions of this Court.
Rule 17.1(c) Supreme Court Rules.

STATUTES INVOLVED

United States Constitution, Article I11,Sec-
tion 2, Clause |. Subjects of jurisdiction.
The judicial Power shall extend to all
Cases . . .of Admiralty and Mari-

time Jurisdiction .

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

During July, 1982, the yacht ALISON V
sank at her dock. Petitioner ALVAREZ con-
tracted with Respondent MERRILL STEVENS
DRY DOCK COMPANY for repairs of the vessel
and her engines. MERRILL STEVENS repaired
the engines without a vital insulating blanket
covering the turbo chargers. The absence of
turbo charger blankets subsequently caused
a fire which destroyed the vessel.

Petitioner AL.VVAREZ sued Respondent,
MERRILL STEVENS in Dade Count (Miami)
Circuit Court under the theories of negligence
and breach of contract. The trial court found
MERRILL STEVENS negligent and in breach of

contract , but held an exculpatory clause in

2

BERR EER RR EREEEEES

the repair contract absolved MERRILL STEVENS
of all liability. The controlling federal law,

Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., 349 U.S.

85, 79 S.Ct. 629, 99 L.Ed. 9Il (1955) was
first raised during trial by Petitioner ALVAREZ
in opposition to MERRILL STEVENS! Motion for
Directed Verdict, and subsequently became the
basis of the trial court's holding MERRILL
STEVENS liable for damages. Upon rehearing,
the trial court reversed its earlier ruling and
held the exculpatory clause void. Respondent
MERRILL STEVENS then appealed to the Dis-
trict Court of Appeal of Florida, Third Dis-
trict, which by majority reversed the trial
court. The dissenting opinion of the Third
District Court of Appeal correctly notes that
the trial court in imposing liability on
MERRILL STEVENS was "following firmly
established principles of law." (Citing

Alcoa Steamship Company v. Charles Farren

and Company, 383 F.2d 46 (5th Cir. 1967),

3

EERE REE EEEEEEE:

cert. denied, 393 U.S. 836, 89 S.Ct. IIl,

21 L.Ed. 2nd 107 (1968)). Petitioner then filed
her Motion for Rehearing and Rehearing en Banc
before the Third District, which was denied.
Petitioner then sought review by the Supreme

Court of Florida, which was also denied.

PSR EREREREEEEEEE:

ARGUMENT

A contract to repair a vessel is a maritime
contract, and mandates application of federal

maritime law. Alcoa Steamship Company v.Charles

Farren and Company, 383 F.2d 46, 50 (Sth Cir.

1967). When a state court hears a case in
admiralty, as did the state court below, it is
bound to follow and apply the federal mari-

time law. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale

Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct. 406,

3 L.Ed. 2d 505 (1959); Moragne v. State Marine

Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 275, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26

L.Ed. 2d 339 (1970).
Under applicable precedents of this Court,
exculpatory clauses in maritime contracts are

void. In Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., 349

U.5.06, 75 S.Ct. 625, 99 -..80. Bi (1955),
this Court held an exculpatory clause that
absolved a tugboat from all liability for negli-
gence in performing its towing contract void.

Following Bisso, the Eleventh Circuit Court

5

EBEEREREEEEREELZEE

of Appeals in Edward Leasing Corp. v. Uhlig

and Associates, 785 F.2d 877, 888-89 (llth Cir.

1986) applied the ruling and rationale of bisso
to a ship repair contract. The Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals there held invalid an exculpa-
tory clause with contradictory and ambiguous
language and an absolute disclaimer of liability.

The reasons given in both Bisso and Edward

Leasing for this rule were: (I) to discourage
negligence by making wrongdoers pay for
damages, and (2) to prevent those in need of
goods or services from being over-reached by
others who have the power to drive hard bargains.
In direct conflict with the rule of Bisso and

Edward Leasing, the majority opinion in the

Third District Court of Appeal held the excul-
patory clause contained in the contract drafted
by Respondent valid. Florida law, in contra-
diction to the general maritime law, while
frowning upon exculpatory clauses, upholds

their validity in certain circumstances. Eller

BEEREREEEEEESEEE

and Company, Inc. v. Galapagos Line, S.A.,

493 So.2d 1061, (Fia. 3rd DCA 1986). The legal
principles relied upon by the state court here are
those applied under Florida state law to uphold
the validity of exculpatory clauses. But, when

a state court hears a case in admiralty, it is
bound to follow and apply the federal maritime

law. Kermarac, supra; Moragne, supra, The rule

of law as set forth by this Court in Bisso, supra,

and followed by the Eleventh Circuit in Edward

Leasing, supra, is that exculpatory clauses are

Thus, the state court, by relying on Fiorida
state law announces the rule of law that directly
conflicts with the precedents of this Court, all
of which repeat the rule that a state court hearing
a case in admiralty must apply federal maritime
law.

This Court should grant certiorari in this
case and entertain this case on the merits

because:

|. If allowed to stand, the Third District
Court of Appeal's decision will enable shipyards
in Florida to avoid liability for their negligence
and shoddy workmanship simply by including
exculpatory language or ambiguous, convoluted or
hidden exculpatory clauses in their contracts, the
terms of which consumers will have no opportunity
to negotiate. This will not deter negligence on the
part of the repairer, but will afford a false sense of
protection to the shipowner contrary to the public
policy of admiralty as set forth by this Court in

Bisso, supra. See Edward Leasing Corp. v.

Uhlig and Associates, Inc., 785 F.2d 877, 885

(ith Cir. 1986); and

(2) If allowed to stand, the state court
decision will create confusion among Florida state
and federal courts. Heretofore, all state courts
have followed the United States Supreme Court's
mandate and applied federa! maritime law in ad
miralty cases while in state court. By virtue of

the state court's decision below, Florida courts

8

BEEREREEREEREEZEEE

are now faced with conflicting precedents to the
effect that state law may be applied in admiralty
proceedings in state court. This will destroy
the uniformity of admiralty, and encourage the

vice of forum shopping.

BEEERE ERE RE ERE ECESE

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and citation
of authority, Petitioner respectfully requests
this Court grant its Petition for Ceriotrari,
entertain this case on the merits, and remand
with instructions quashing the appellate de-
cision below and reinstating the judgment of the
trial court.

Respectfully submitted,
HAYDEN AND MILLIKEN, P.A.
Attorneys for Petitioner
Suite 63
5915 Ponce de Leon Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33146
(305) 662-1523

. Wie fe (a

“WICLIAMB- MILLIKEN, ESQ.

10

BERBER RERREREESEES
|

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

| HEREBY CERTIFY that | have, on this
3ist day of March, 1988, mailed three copies of
this Petition for Writ of Certiorari to G.
Morton, Good, Esq., Keliey, Drye & Warren
including Smathers and Thompson, Attorneys
for Respondent, 2400 Miami Center, 100

Chopin Plaza, Miami, Florida 3313l.

[fe ee #
‘ ph Pla i
WFLLIAM Bt MILLIKEN, ESQ.

11

APPENDIX

PEEEREEREEREESSEEEE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE IITH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY,
FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIV.
CASE NO. 85-6964 (CA 25)
VIVIAN ALVAREZ,

f/u/b/o AMERICAN HOME
INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff
AMENDED FINDINGS

OF FACT AND CON-
CLUSION OF LAW

V «

MERRILL STEVENS DRY
DOCK COMPANY,

Defendant
/

THIS CAUSE, having been tried before
the Court on March 10 and Il, 1986, and the Court
having taken testimony, evidence and argument of
counsel and having considered memoranda of law of
both parties, the Court hereby makes the following
Findinas of Facts and Conclusions of Law.

FINDINGS OF FACTS

l. Plaintiff, AMERICAN HOME INSURANCE,

insured the yacht "ALISAN V", a 1980 model 40

a= ss EEE eae eee Be

sport fishing boat manufactured by Ocean Yacht

Company. The "ALISAN V" was purchased in

1981 by SANTIAGO and VIVIAN ALVAREZ and they

owned it continuously until it burned on May lI,
1983.

2. In late July, 1982, the "ALISAN V"
sank at its dock. The owners of the "ALISAN V"
and its insurer, American Home arranged to have
Defendant, Merrill Stevens raise the yacht and
tow it to their marina at Dinner Key, Florida.

3. Based on the recommendations of sur-
veyor, Alex Milligan, competitive bids were
solicited for the repairs of the yacht due to its
sinking.

~4, Ultimately, the contract for repair of
the "ALISAN V" was awarded to Merrill Stevens.

5. Pursuant to this contract, Merril
Stevens agreed to refurbish the vessel in accord-
ance with its Invoice No. 8lll dated October 22,
1983. Item No. 3 of Merrill Stevens Invoice No.

8Ill dated October 22, 1983. Item No. 3 of

—2?-

Merrill Stevens Invoice No. 8lll states as follows:

"The main engines to be removed from
the vessel and disassemble complete

of reduction gear - transmission units.
That all parts be cleaned and water
damaged parts such as rings, bearings,
seals, gaskets, belts, gauge senders,
filters, lubricants, regulators, relays,
alternators, etc. be replaced by new
ones. That electric starters as complete
of solenoid units, cylinder heads and
turbo units be overhauled with parts
renewed as necessary. That units

be reassembled, paint furnished, re-
installed with alignments and securing
as original and all the tested and
proven in good running condition as
before."

6. Item Il of Merrill Stevens Invoice No.

Sill states as follows:

“Replace water damaged insulations
inclusive of masonite coverings
and/or sheathings be removed. New
supplied, installed, covered, sheathed
and finished as original. Clean,
prepare and pain engine space area."

The repairs itemized in No. Il were performed
by Merrill Stevens carpentry shop.

7. Merrill Stevens sub-contracted the work
in item No. 3 of its Work Order &8ill to Pitts
Transmission. Neither the owners nor the insur-

ers participated in selecting the sub-contractor.

-3-

BERERERERER EEE

The owners were billed by Merrill Stevens for the
services performed by Pitts Transmission which
was paid.

8. The "ALISAN V" was equipped with
Detroit Diesel 67ITI| engines. These engines
are equipped with exhaust driven turbo-chargers
whose purpose is to increase the performance
and efficiency of the engine by forcing air into
the intake manifold. Each Turbo consists basic-
ally of a turbine fan that is driven by the
escaping exhaust gases of the engine. This
turbine is connected by a shaft to the intake
side of the turbo-charger. In essence, the exhaust
turbine driven by the escaping gases drives
the fan which forces air into the engine. This has
the beneficial effect of increasing the efficiency
and performance of the engine. The "ALISAN V"
had turb-chargers manufactured by Air Research,
Inc. The normal operating temperature of
these turbo-chargers is 900° to 1200° Fahrenheit.
Before the "ALISAN V" sank in July of 1982,

each turbo-charger was covered with a protective

-4-

insulating blanket made of asbestos or similar
material.

9. The "ALISAN V" was purchased in Puerto
Rico and brought from Puerto Rico to Miami on
her own bottom. The "ALISAN V “ made several
trips to the Bahamas with no operational problems
before she sank at the dock in 1982.

10. Merrill Stevens removed the engines and
turbo-chargers from the "ALISAN V" which were
then trucked to Pitts Transmission. In order to
disassemble the turbo-chargers the blankets had
to be removed. During August of 1982,

Merrill Stevens' employee, Mike Vores, at the
request of Pitts Transmission, prepared a Purchase
Order to a supplier of General Motors parts and
engines, Johnson & Towers, Iinc., requesting

two sets of turbo-charger blankets for the GM
67IT!| engines of the "ALISAN V". Johnson and
Towers never sent the turbo-charger blankets

to Merrill Stevens because they were "back-

ordered". This is evident on Johnson & Towers'

-5-

BSEHREHREERE EERE EEEB® #2

Invoice No. 270646.

11. The Court finds that the Plaintiff,
Santiago Alvarez read and signed the Work
Order and Ship Repair Contract #6427, Invoices
no. 8ill and 8Il2. The Work and Ship Repair
Contract contains the following:

I. "Contractor agrees to repair said

vessel in a good and workman like manner,

pursuant to the terms as outlined
and the owner and/or vessel agrees
to pay contractor for said work,

labor and materials as hereinafter stated.

In the event that specific prices
are not quoted, it is understood
and agreed that all work is to be
performed at the contractor's usual
and customary time and material
charges. Other than as specifically
set forth herein, contractor makes no
warranties concerning its workman-
ship or material, either expressly
or implied, including any implied
warranty of merchantability or
fitness for a particular purpose."

kkk

iP "Contractor undertakes to perform

the work outlined and haul and launch

vessels, provide berth, warfage,
towage and other services and
facilities only upon condition that
it shall not be liable, directly or
indirectly, in contract, tort, or
otherwise, to the vessel, its
owners, charterers, underwriters,

-6-

BEEBE EEE REEREESEEE

or any of their agents, servants

or employees, or persons to whom

they might be responsible for any
personal injury or death or damage

to the vessel, its cargo, equipment

or movable stores or for any consequence
thereof, unless such personal injury,
death or peroperty damage is caused

by Contractor's gross negligence or

the gross negligence shall not be
presumed but must be affirmatively
established. !n no event, including

the negligence and/or the gross
negligence and/or the breach of contract
or CONTRACTOR, shall the CONTRACTOR'S
aggregate laibility to all such parties

in interest for personal injury,death

or damages sustained by them,

including damages, exceed the sum

of $300,000 and in no event shall

the CONTRACTOR be liable to any
extent to the vessel, her owners,
charterers and/or underwriters,

for the cost of defending any claims
asserted by third parties, including
attorneys' fees whether such actions
shall be commenced by its

employees or others."

12. On approximately April 29, 1982,
Santiago Alvarez took possession of his yacht
from Merrill Stevens. Prior to that time
representatives of Merrill Stevens and Pitts
Transmission present. During at least one of
these sea trials, the engine hatches were open
and the vessel was stopped several times for

-7-

BEBE REREREERERERBESESEE

adjustments or repairs. None of the sea trials

included a continuous engine running time in

excess of one hour. With the engines running

at 3/4 throttle it would have taken approximately
10 minutes for the turbo-chargers to reach their
maximum operating temperature.

13. On Saturday, April 30, 1983, Santiago
Alvarez took the "ALISAN V" for a short cruise

in northern Biscayne Bay which did not include

a continuous engine running time of more than a

half an hour. During this voyage Santiago

Alvarez did not notice any smell, heat or other signs
of burning in the salon or engine compartment.

14. On Sunday, May I, 1983, Santiago
Alvarez and his family, along with some friends,
took the "ALISAN V_" to the Elliott Key anchorage

in southern Biscayne Bay. The vessel was

running at approxiamtely two-thirds throttle or

approximately 1800 rpm. The trip from the

| dock to Elliot Key was approximately one to

| two hours. When the "ALISAN V" arrived at
the anchorage, the pilot throttled down to idle

| speed.
- 8-

I5. Shortly theareafter Santiago Alvarez
Jr. noted a smokey smell in the salon, which
he reproted to his father. Santiago Alvarez
opened the engine compartment access hatch to
investigate the smell and was greated by a
gray smoke spewing from the engine compartment.
He immediately ordered the engines stopped and
began efforts to fight the fire. He then opened
one of the mainengizie hatches. Nearby boats
brought a number of fire extinguishers which
were discharged into the engine compartment
to no avail.

16. John "Moby" Griffin, a marine salvor,

was also at the anchorage and proceeded to

assist when he noted the vessel afire. He was
oveivaniiy successful in extinguishing the fire
using pumps aboard his vessel. Santiago
Alvarez had abandoned the "ALISAN V"before
this time. Santiago Alverex spoke with "Moby"
Griffin and arrange for Moby Marine to tow the
"ALISAN V" to Moby Marine's dock on the
Miami River were the subsequent -urveys took

-9-

place.

17. After this loss, Santiago Alvarez notifed
his insurance carrier who appointed marine sur-
veyor, Dave Pascoe, to conduct a survey of the
vessel. This took place over three days commen-
cing on May 5, 1983. Subsequently, a joint
survey was conducted on May 20, 1983, with
marine surveyors Dave Pasco, Charlie Stephens,
(appointed by the owners) and electrician Joe
LaFauci of Cable Marine, also appointed by the
owners.

I8. As a result of the joint survey, the above
surveyors concluded that the fire started because

of the absence of the turbo-charger blankets on

the turbo-chargers of the "ALISAN V" engines
in conjunction with the proximity of flammable
material in the engine room. The Court accepts
their opinion as a cause of the fire.

19. The vessel's engine room was equipped
with a fixed Halon fire fighting system manu-
facutred by Fireboy and installed by Ocean

Yachts at manufacture. This system was

10

eee REE REE EE E22 es

recommended by Fireboy as sufficient to pro-

tect a space of 200 cubic feet at 4-3/4 percent
concentration, whereas the engine room in the
"ALISAN V" was calculated by Plaintiff's expert,
Mr. Stephens, to be in excess of 370 cubic

feet. The system did not include a means of
automatic shut down of the engines or of auto-
matically warning the vessel's owner in the event
of discharge of the unit. Coast Guard require-
ments for Halongenated systems require a
minimum of 6% concentration to be effective. The
fireboy unit installed was less than |/3 of the size
needed to protect the "ALISAN V", as experts
for both Plaintiff and Defendant agreed. A
properly designed system would include adequate
size, automatic shutdown and discharge warnings,
all of which were available at the time of constru-
ction of the yacht. A properly designed and
installed system would have extinguished the fire,
although it would not have prevented it from

starting. The Court has no opinion as to what

11

extent the existence of a proper system would
have affected the damages to the "ALISAN V",
finding this to be speculative at this point.

20. The Court finds that Merrill Stevens'
failure to install or to see that their sub-contractor,
Pitts Transmission, installed turbo-charger
blankets on the "ALISAN V" prior to delivery to
the owners constituted negligence and further
finds that such failure was a breach of the express
agreement undertaken by Merrill Stevens in
Paragraph | of their repair contract ". . .to
repair the vessel in a.good and workmanlike
manner. . .". The failure to install these turbo-
charger blankets was a proximate cause of the fire
and hence Plaintiff's losses. There was no showing,
however, nor was it pled, that Merrill Stevens
was guilty of gross fault or gross negligence
nor is there any showing that Plaintiff's neg-
ligence or fault in any manner contributed to
the caues of the fire.

21. The yacht was determined to be a con-

12

structive total loss. American Home paid $150,000.
to the owner which the Court finds to be the Fair
Market Value of the vessel on the date of its
destruction. Moby Marine made a salvage claim
under the Sue and Labor Clause of the policy in
the amount of $20, 000. This was settled for $7,000
and the remains of the "ALISAN V". The Court
finds that this seems to be fair and reasonable.
American Home made these payments on November 14,
1983 to John Griffin and October 4, 1983 to Vivan
Alvarez, which determine the date from which
Plaintiff's damages began to run.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties
and subject matter of this maritime claim. Venue
is proper in Dade County, Florida.

2. American Home Insurance Company is
subrogated to the rights of the owners of the
“ALISON V" pursuant to payments made by
American Home to the owners of the "ALISAN V"
on the agreed value hull insurance policy held

by American Home on the "ALISAN V" which was

13

SEeBRER REE ER RE E 2 22S

introduced into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit

No. | in the sum of $150,000. Pursuant to the
Sue and Labor Clause of said policy, American
Home also paid to their insured $20,000 for the

salvage expenses referred to in paragraph 2l

of the Findings of Fact herein for a total payment

of $170,000.

3. American Home seeks to recover the
$170,000 in damages, either in contract on the
theory that Merrill Stevens breached a warranty
of workmanlike performance or in tort on the
theory that Merrill Stevens was negligent in repairing
the "ALISAN V". It is well settled that a con-
tract to repair a vessel is maritime in nature.

Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc., et al v. Charles

Ferren & Co., ("Alcoa Corsair") 383 F.2d 46,

1957 AMC 2578 (Sth Cir. 1967). Cert. denied.

393 U.S. 836, 89 S.Ct. Ill (1962). Consequently,
a shipowner has a maritime cause of action
whether he sues in contract for a breach of

warranty of workmanlike performance or in tort

14

ee NC

for the negligent performance of a maritime

contract. Alcoa Corsair, supra; Sealift v.

Refinadora Costarricenfe de Petroleo, 60!1 F.Supp.

457 (S.D. 1984). Since Kermarec v. Compagnia

Generale Transatlintic, 358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct.

406 (1959), it has been clear that where a case
involves legal rights and liabilities which are
cognizable in Admiralty, the general Admiralty
law governs the case no matter what forum is
chosen, including actions brought in State Court.

Sealift, supra, at 463. Specifically, federal

Admiralty law governs the construction of the
terms of the repair contract together with the
standard of performance due under the contract.

Alcoa Corsair, supra, at 2583. Empacadora del

Norte v. Steiner Shipyard, Inc., 954, 966 (S.D.

Ala. 1979).

4. Merrill Stevens expressly agreed in their
repair contract to repair the vessel in a good and
workmanlike manner and specifically had the duty

to reinstall turbo-chnarcer blankets on the

15

:
i
;
;
:
:
}
}
|

"ALISAN V" before delivering it to the owners.
Merrill Stevens breached their undertaking by
failing to insall the turbo-charger blankets which

had been back-ordered. Alcoa Corsair, supra.

5. The Court accepts Plaintiff's expert's
opinion that the absence of the turbo-charger
blankets was a proximate cause of the fire and
hence Plaintiff's damages. There was no com-
parative negligence or fault in any manner on the
part of the owner which contributed to the cause
of the fire.

6. Merrill Stevens was also negligent in
failing to install the tubo-charger blanekts which
negligence was a legal cause of the burning of
the "ALISAN V" under the curcumstances
existing on the "ALISAN V". There was no com-
parative negligence by the owners which was a
legal cause of the fire. There was no gross
negligence or gross fault on the part of

Merrill Stevens nor was any pled in Plaintiff's

Complaint.

PERE SE RE RE RE RRR ERE EE 2S

7. The inadequate fire extinguishing system
designed by Fireboy and installed by the manufacturer
of the "ALISAN V", Ocean Yachts, rendered the
vessel unseaworthy, which was a proximate cause
of the loss, although it was not a cause of the
fire. Accordingly, as between Plaintiff and
Merrill Stevens, the unseaworthy condition of the
ship created by the fire extinguishing system
has no effect on the damages recoverable by

Plaintiff from Merrill Stevens. Alcoa Corsair, supra,

at 2589.
8. The Court finds that paragraph 1 printed

on the reverse side of Merrill Stevens repair

contract is an express warranty to "repair the
vessel in good and workmanlike manner". There-
fore, Merrill Stevens is liable to Plaintiff on the
breach of express warranty count. Insofar as

the negligence count is concerned, the Court finds

that the “Red Letter" clause contained in para-

i

graph 7 of the subject repair contract is valid

under maritime law and effectively exculpates

17

Merrill Stevens from liability on a simple negli-
gence theory. However, the "Red Letter" clause
does not absolve Merrill Stevens from liability, as
here, resulting from breach of their express
warranty to "repair the vessel in a good and
workmanlike manner". All other affirmative de-
fences of Merrill Stevens are rejected.

9. As a result of Merrill Stevens breach of
express warranty, the yacht "ALISAN V" was
declared a constructive total loss and Plaintiff
has incurred damages in the following amounts.
The Court further finds that American Home is
entitled to pre-judgment interest at a rate of 12%
per annum from the date of payment of claims
as set forth in paragraph 2! of the Findings of

Fact. (See Gator Marine Services Towing Company,

Inc. v. V.J. Ray McDermott & Co., 651 F.2d

1096 (5th Cir. 1981):

18

A. Hull Claim $150, 000. 00
Prejudgment interest
Since November 14, 1983 45,000.00

Total on Hull Claim $195, 864. 00

B. Sue and Labor (Salvage $ 20,000.00
Prejudgment interest

since November 4, 1983 6, 385.00
Total Sue & Labor $26, 385.00
Total Damages $222,249.00

10. Plaintiff also claims that he is entitled
to attorneys fees and costs. Attorneys fees are
not recoverable by the prevailing party in
admiralty actions absent statutory authority, with
two exceptions, neither of which is involved here.

Aleyska Pipeline Service Co. V. Wilderness

Society, 421 U.S. 240, 95 S.Ct. 1612 (1975).

Noritake Co. Inc. v. M/V Hellenic Champion et

al, 627 F.2d 724 (5th Cir. 1980); Ocean Barge

Transport Co. v. Hess Oil Virgin Island Corp.

598 F.Supp. 45 (D.St. Croix 1984); Aijple
(La. 1982) Plaintiff is not entitled to an award
of attorneys fees on its breach of contract claim,

whether termed breach of warranty of workman-

19

like performance or otherwise, since no liabi-

lity has been imposed upon Plaintiff for which
he is seeking indemnity. The Court is aware

of the apparent holdings in the 5th Circuit cases

of Todd v. Turbine Service, Inc., supra,

and Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Auto Transportation,

S.A. 763 F.2d 745 (5th Cir. 1985) but expressly

declines from applying them to a situation as here,

where indemnity is not being sought. Smith

& Kelly Co. v. S/S Concordia Tadj, 718 F.2d 1022

(ith Cir. 1983). The Court reserves jurisdiction
to award taxable costs upor appropriate motion.
i. Plaintiff shall submit a Final Judgment
in accordance with these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law within 5 days.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this [8th
day of June, 1986 at Miami, Dade County, Florida.

/s/ PHILLIP W. KNIGHT

Circuit Court Judge

Copies to: Domingo Rodriguez, Esq.
Debra L. Brady, Esq.
Debra Altizer, Esq.

20

I OO EE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA - THIRD DISTRICT
January Term, 1987

. CASE NO. 86-1732
MERRILL STEVENS DRY DOCK
COMPANY,

Appellant
Vv.
VIVIAN ALVAREZ, f/u/b/o
AMERICAN HOME INSURANCE
COMAPNY,

Appellee

Opinion filed June 23, 1987

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade
County, Phillip W. Knight, Judge.

Smathers & Thompson and Debra L. Brady
and G. Morton Good, for appeallant

Hayden and Milliken and Domingo C. Rodriguez,
for appeiive

Before BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON and
FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from a final judgment

2|

BEREBEEREEEBEEEBEREEEBEEBE SBS ef

— oe ——— — ——— oe — — eanidiineeel a ee Raia all ee ta csiieiell le le =

in favor of the appellee,American Home In-
surance Company, for $222,249 the amount
determined by the trial court, sitting without

a jury, to be the damages suffered by the
appellee when a yacht owned by Alverez,
American Home's subrogor | was totally des-
troyed by fire. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Company
urges that an exculpatory clause in the repair
contract relieved it from responsibility for
damages to other parts of the vessel or the
vessel as whole, caused by its negligent failure
to properly repair a certain part of the vessel.
We agree and reverse with directions to enter
judgment for Merrill Stevens.”

There is no dispute that the negligent failure
of the defendant, Merrill Stevens Dry Dock
Company, to install or to see to it that its sub-
contractor installed turbo-charger blankets on the

plaintiff's yacht was a breach of its express

undertaking "to repair the vessel in a good and

22

workmanlike manner" and was the proximate cause
of a fire resulting in the total loss of the vessel.
There is also no dispute that it was neither pleaded
nor proved that Merrill Stevens' omission amounted
to gross megligence.

Initially, the trial court, in entering judgment
for Merrill Stevens as to the loss of the vessel
claim, concluded that Clause contract

clearly and unequivocally expresses the
intent that Merrill Stevens shall have no
liability for any damages or losses sustained,
whether in tort or contract unless and until
it has been establisehd that their conduct
amounted to gross engligence. Such clasues
under the maritime law, Known as "Red
Letter" clauses have been held to be valid
and binding. Todd Shipyard Corp. v.
Turbine Service, Inc. , 674 F.2d 401 (5th
Cir. 1982); Morton v. Zidell Explorations,
Inc., 695 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1982); Ortiz

v. ETPM U.S.A., Inc., 553 F.Supp. 549
(S.D. Tex. 1982); Noruna IV, AMC 967
(D.Mass. 1969). Clause 7 was under all

the circumstances surrounding these

repairs binding on the parties, valid and
enforceable."

On rehearing, the trial court reversed itself,
concluding that the "Red Letter" clause did not
"absolve Merrill Stevens from liability.

23

BPS@EEREREEBEEEEEEBEEE#® = =

resulting from breach of their express warranty
to 'repair the vessel in a good and workmanlike
manner.'"

We are of the view that the trial court was
right in the first place: Merrill Stevens' under-
taking to “repair the vessel in a good and
workmanlike manner" made it responsible to
correct defective repairs; the exculpatory clause
relieved Merrill Stevens--unless grossly negli-
gent--from responsibility for damages to other
parts of the vessel caused by the defective
repairs. This is simply an unambiguous arm's
length transaction between parties of like
bargaining power who were well able to allocate
who was to bear the responsibility for insuring

against what loss. Accordingly, the judgment

under review is reversed, and the cause is remanded

to the trial court with directions to enter judgment
for Merrill Stevens. The order denying American

Home's motion for attorneys fees is affirmed.

24

Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and
remanded with directions.

DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON JJ., concur.

25

—

MERRILL~STEVENS DRY DOCK COMPANY
vs.

VIVIAN ALVAREZ f/u/b/o AMERICAN
HOME INSURANCE COMPANY

BASKIN, Judge (dissenting).

Initially, the trial court construed the
parties’ contract as absolving Merrill Stevens
Dry Dock, Inc. [Merrill Stevens] of
liability unless Merrill Stevens was proved grossly
negligent in performing yacht repairs. Upon
reconsideration, however, the court declared
Merrill Stevens liable for the loss of the
yacht, ruling that it had breached its express
warranty. The majority reverses the trial
court's determination upon a holding that Merrill
Stevens incurred no liability unless it was grossly
negligent in the performance of its contract. To
reach that conclusion the majority relies on a
portion of the challenged clause, but is silent as
to the significance of the remainder of the clause.
The majority's failure to give effect to the entire
clause forms the basis of my dissent.

The operative clause states:

26 ~

CONTRACTOR undertakes to perform the
work outlined and haul and launch vessels,
provide berth, wharfage, towage, and other
services and facilities only upon the condition
that it shall not be liable, direct!y or in-
directly, in contract, tort, or otherwise,

to the vesel, its owners, charterers, under-
writers, or any of their agents, servants,

or employees, or persons to whom they might
be responsible for any personal injury or
death, or damge to the vessel, its cargo,
equipment or movable stores or for any
consequence thereof, unless such personal
injury, death, or property damage, is caused
by CONTRACTOR'S gross negligence or

the gross negligence of any of its employees,
which aross negligence shaii not be presumed
but mustbe affirmatively established. In

no event, including the negligence and/or
the gross negligence and/or the breach of
contract of CONTRACTOR, shall the CONT-
TRACTOR'S aggregate liability to all such
parties in interest for personal injury,

death or damage sustained by them, in-
cluding damages for delay of the vessel, or
any other type of damage, exceed the sum

of $300,000.00, and in no event shall the
CONTRACTOR be liable to any extent to the
vessel, her owners, charterers and/or under-
writers, for the cost of defencing any claims
asserted by third parties, including attorney's
fees, whether such actions shall be commenced
by its employees or others.

Reading the clause in its entirety, ! conclude

that Merrill Stevens is laible for its conduct

under the terms of the contract. Although the

first portion of the clause purports to impose

liability on Merrill Stevens only if it is found

27

grossly negligent, The second section renders Merrill
Stevens liabile up to the sum of $300,000 for
"negligence and/or . . .gross negligence and/or
...breach of contract... ." The parties
obviously envisioned circumstances where Merrill
Stevens could be liable under any of three theories;
negligence, gross negligence, or breach of contract.
The trial court, having determined that Merrill
Stevens breached its express warranty to repair
the yacht in a "good and workmanlike manner,"
correctly imposed liability on Merrill Stevens and,
following firmly establshed principles of law,

see Alcoa Steamship Co. V. Charles Ferran &

Co.,383 F.2d 46 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied,

393 U.S. 836, 89 S.Ct. Ill, 21 L.Ed. 2d 107 (1968)

awarded damages under the $300,000 limitation.
The majority approves the trial court's finding,
but refuses to impose liability, apparently because
the breach stems from a contractual violation
rather than from gross negligence.

| find no basis for the majority's reweighing

of the trial court's findings of fact, its failure to

28

ence ss Oc ee lO eS LUD

consider the second portion of the contested
clause, or its holding that Merrill Stevens' breach
of its express warranty does not constitute grounds
for assessing liability. | would enforce the
contract and hold Merrill Stevens liable up to the
$300,000 limit intended by the parties. | agree,
however, that American Home Insurance Company

is not entitled to attorney's fees.

|. American Home, as the vessel's insurer,
paid Alvarez $180,000 for the loss.

2. American Home cross-appeals from the
trial court's order denying it attorney's fees.
We affirm that order without further discussion.

3. Clause 7 of the contract provides:

"CONTACTOR undertakes to perform the
work outlined and haul and launch vessels,
provide berth, wharfage, towage, and other
services and facilities only upon the condition
that it shail not be liable, directly or in-
directly, in contract, tort, or otehrwise,

to the vesel, its owners, charterers, under-
writers, or any of their agents, servants,

or employees, or persons to whom they might
be responsible for any personal injury or
death, or damge to the vessel, its cargo,
equipment or movable stores or for any
consequence thereof, unless such personal
injury, death, or property damage, is caused
by CONTRACTOR'S gross negligence or

the gross negligence of any of its employees,

which gross negligence shall not be presumed
but must be affirmatively established. In

no event, including the negligence and/or

the gross negligence and/or the breach of
contract of CONTRACTOR, shall the CONT-
TRACTOR'S aggregate liability to all such
parties in interest for personal injury,

death or damage sustained by them, in-
cluding damages for delay of the vessel, or
any other type of damage, exceed the sum

of $300,000.00, and in no event shall the
CONTRACTOR be liable to any extent to the
vessel, her owners, charterers %nd/or under-
writers, for the cost of defending any claims
asserted by third parties, including attorney's
fees, whether such actions shall be commenced
by its employees or others."

30

a

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL OF FLORIDA

THIRD DISTRICT

July Term, A.D. 1987
Monday, August 3l, 1987

MERRILL STEVENS DRY
DOCK COMPANY,

Appellant
v. CASE NO. 86-1732
VIVIAN ALVAREZ, f/u/b/o
AMERICAN HOME INSURANCE
COMPANY,

Appellee

j

Upon consideration, appellee's motion for
rehearing and rehearing en banc is hereby denied.

(Baskin, J. dissents.)

A true copy

Attest:
LOUIS J. SPALLONE
Clerk District Court of
Appeal, Third District

cc: Debra L. Brady
Domingo C. Rodriguez

31

i

- ay

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Tuesday, January 5, 1988

CASE NO. 71245

District Court of Appeal, Third
District No. 86-1732

VIVIAN ALVAREZ, f/u/b/o
AMERICAN HOME INSURANCE
COMPANY,

Petitioner,

Vv.

MERRILL STEVENS DRY DOCK
COMPANY,

Respondent

This cause having heretofore been submitted to
Court on jurisdictional briefs and portions of
the record deemed necessary to reflect juris-
diction under Article V., Section 3(b),

Florida Constitution (1980), and the Court
having determined that it should decline to
accept jurisdiction, it is ordered that the
Petition for Review is denied.

No Motion for Rehearing will be enter-

32

meeBRRE RE RE REEEEE

tained by the Court. See Fla. R. App.

P. 9 330 (d).
OVERTON, Acting C.J. EHRLICH, SHAW

BERKETT and GRIMES, JJ., concur.

A true Copy
Teer:

Sid J. White,
Clerk Supreme Court

cc: Hon. Louis J. Spallone, Clerk
Hon: Richard P. Brinker, Clerk
Hon. Phillip W. Knight, Judge

Domingo C. Rodriguez, Esq.
Debra L. Brady, Esq.
G. Morton Good, Esq.

33

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_1574%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.