Jones Act Maritime Lawyer : Houston Jones Act & Maritime Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Arnold & Itkin Law Firm : Offshore Injury, Maritime Law : Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida

Transocean Balks At Document Production

In a new civil proceeding filed by the United States, the federal government has petitioned for enforcement of an administrative subpoena issued against Transocean Holdings, LLC, and related parties.  The subpoena was issued in October by the Joint Board of Investigation of the United States Coast Guard and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

In its petition, the government seeks to compel Transocean to produce two categories of documents related to safety audits on Transocean vessels in the Gulf of Mexico.  The Joint Board of Investigation has issued a total of three subpoenas to Transocean for the production of these and other documents related to its investigation.  According to the government, "Transocean responded to [the first two] subpoenas with objections and produced no documents."  Transocean's response to the government's third subpoena gave rise to the instant petition, filed on November 23 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

In particular, Transocean responded to certain categories of materials sought in the most recent investigatory subpoena, but it produced no documents as to two categories of materials requested.

Thus the government now seeks an order requiring the company to divulge:

• all documents relating to the last  ISM audit report for all Transocean vessels that operated in the Gulf of Mexico at the time of the casualty, and
• the external audit(s) of the Safety Management System (ISM), including but not limited to an initial audit in 1998, two 5-year recertification audits in 2003 and 2008, and four interim audits in 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010.

The government maintains that those safety reports are relevant to the Joint Board of Investigation's inquiry, the materials are lawfully subject to subpoena, and the subpoena issued by the Joint Board falls squarely within the scope of the Board's authority pursuant to its Congressionally mandated investigation of the explosion, fire and oil spill involving the Deepwater Horizon.

Transocean Uncooperative On Other Fronts

According to media reports, other investigations into the Deepwater Horizon tragedy are running into similar difficulties in obtaining information.  A federal investigation by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, for instance, has been slowed by a lack of cooperation on the part of Transocean employees.  Apparently Transocean and attorneys for the subpoenaed workers maintain that the CSB lacks jurisdiction to investigate the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.

The United States Department of Justice also has opened a criminal investigation into events surrounding the loss of the Deepwater Horizon.

To discuss a case with an experienced maritime lawyer, contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP, or call the maritime law office of Arnold & Itkin LLP toll free at 866-222-2606

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Cal-Dive Int'l, Inc. v. Seabright Ins. Co., No. 10-30031 (5th Cir. Nov. 22, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered which among multiple insurers had a duty to defend a a purported alternate employer in an underlying Jones Act tort suit.

Coastal Catering agreed to provide catering services aboard the vessel M/V American Horizon.  David Brown was injured aboard the vessel and filed a Jones Act suit against Coastal and the vessel's owner, Horizon, both of whom he characterized as his employers.

The Horizon-Coastal contract provided that Coastal had a duty to defend Horizon.  Coastal did so through State National Insurance Company (SNIC), which served as its Maritime General Liability insurer.  Coastal also had a Maritime Employer's Liability (MEL) policy with Seabright Insurance Company.

Horizon accepted SNIC's defense, and Seabright defended Coastal in the Brown litigation.  The case settled, with SNIC and Seabright each paying half of the settlement amount.  SNIC then sought reimbursement from Seabright for the costs SNIC incurred in defending Horizon.

According to SNIC, Horizon was Brown's "alternate employer" for purposes of an alternate employment endorsement in Seabright's MEL policy; the endorsement provided in pertinent part that Seabright would not ask any other insurer of the alternate employer to share in a loss covered by the endorsement.

Seabright disagreed, contending that Brown's allegations were not sufficiently specific to trigger its duty to defend and that a separate policy exclusion absolved it as to Horizon even if Horizon were Brown's alternate employer.  The exclusion said that Seabright's policy didn't cover bodily injury to a master and crew covered by a Protection and Indemnity Policy.  In fact, Horizon maintained a Protection and Indemnity (P&I) policy covering the crew on its vessel.

After Seabright refused to reimburse SNIC, SNIC and Horizon filed suit against Seabright in Louisiana federal district court to recover the attorney’s fees SNIC spent in defending Horizon.  The court granted SNIC’s motion for summary judgment and denied Seabright’s cross-motion, holding that Seabright was obliged to reimburse SNIC for sums it spent defending Horizon. Seabright appealed.

The Fifth Circuit reversed and rendered judgment in favor of Seabright, holding that Seabright had no obligation to defend Horizon based on the exclusion in its policy where an insured maintained a P&I policy that covered injuries to its crew.

Based on a plain reading of the Seabright policy and the Louisiana authorities that had interpreted such language, the Fifth Circuit agreed with Seabright that its policy did not afford coverage to Horizon for Brown’s claim. Assuming without deciding that Brown’s allegations were sufficient to trigger the alternate employer endorsement, those allegations effectively made Horizon an additional insured under the Seabright policy. However, because Horizon had in effect a P&I insurance policy that covered the crew working on the M/V American Horizon, the P&I Exclusion in Seabright’s policy excluded coverage to Horizon. The court thus reversed the summary judgment entered by the district court and rendered judgment in favor of Seabright.

If you have any questions regarding a maritime incident or have suffered a maritime injury, contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation or call our maritime law office toll free at 866-222-2606.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In April, five Somali men were captured at sea off the east African coast by the crew of a United States naval vessel. The men were detained and brought to the United States for trial as pirates. Kenya earlier had agreed to prosecute pirates detained by foreign navies, but the country later changed its stance and, in this instance, refused to accept the captured Somalis. Trial in the United States began in early November in Norfolk, Virginia.

The defendants were charged with fourteen counts, including the crime of piracy, which is subject to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.

According to media reports, the federal government's case revealed a botched piracy attempt by three of the defendants against a ship they believed to be a defenseless merchant vessel.  In reality, the ship was the guided missile frigate U.S.S. Nicholas, which chased down the pirates after their aborted attack. The pirates' mother ship was intercepted the following day and another two defendants detained.

The government asserts that the men promptly confessed that they were at sea out of Mogadishu with the purpose of pirating a merchant vessel. The defendants deny the government's account and maintain that they were shanghaied by real pirates, who kidnapped them at gunpoint and ordered them to attack a passing vessel.

The Somali piracy case is pending before U.S. District Judge Mark S. Davis, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Norfolk. Media reports indicate that closing arguments in the case were scheduled to begin on Monday, November 22, with the action to be handed to the jury on Tuesday.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Roberts v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 08-70268 (9th Cir. Nov. 10, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed "the maximum weekly rate that applies to an employee’s compensation for disability under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act."  The court held that an employee is “newly awarded compensation” within the meaning of LHWCA § 6(c) when he first becomes entitled to compensation.

The employee, a high wage earner, was injured when he slipped on a patch of ice at the employer's premises.  He stopped work in 2002 and sought compensation under the LHWCA.  The employer and its insurer made some initial payments but then stopped paying compensation in mid-2005.

An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the worker's disability was temporary total from the date of injury to July 2005, permanent total from that time until the following October, and permanent partial from that time forward.  The ALJ then determined that the applicable maximum weekly wage rate with respect to each period of disability was 200 percent the national average weekly wage for fiscal year 2002, which was the first year the employee became disabled.  This was significantly less than weekly compensation to which the employee would have been entitled based solely on his actual average weekly wage and his residual wage-earning capacity while partially disabled.

The ALJ denied relief on reconsideration, except for an adjustment of the national average weekly wage figure to be applied for a very short term of the worker's permanent total disability in 2005.  The Benefits Review Board affirmed.

In its per curiam opinion, the Ninth Circuit first considered when an employee is "newly awarded compensation" under LHWCA § 6(c). Under that section, “[d]eterminations [of the national average weekly wage] with respect to a period shall apply to employees . . . currently receiving compensation for permanent total disability . . . during such period, as well as those newly awarded compensation during such period.”

Parsing the statutory language, the court focused on the terms "award" and "awarded," which were not defined in the LHWCA.  The court reasoned that § 6 used "awarded" in such a way that it did not mean “assigned by formal order in the course of adjudication,” but rather “newly entitled to compensation.”  Thus, the court held, an employee is "newly awarded" compensation within the meaning of § 6(c) when he first becomes disabled (and thereby entitled to compensation).  This meant that in the case before it, the ALJ properly applied the 2002 fiscal year maximum to the injured worker's compensation for temporary total disability and permanent partial disability.

The court went on to consider when an employee is "currently receiving compensation for permanent total disability."  The worker here received no compensation from his employer during his period of permanent total disability in 2005.

Employers must pay the compensation due under the LHWCA regardless of whether an employee files an administrative claim.  Thus § 6(c)'s reference to the period "during" which an employee is "currently receiving compensation for permanent total disability" had to mean the period during which an employee was entitled to receive such compensation, without regard to what actually was paid by the employer.

The court thus affirmed except to the extent the worker was awarded compensation based upon the national average weekly wage with respect to fiscal year 2002, rather than 2005, for his permanent total disability during 2005.

----------------------------------

If you or a family member has suffered a maritime injury, call Arnold & Itkin LLP toll free at (866) 222-2606 or contact us online. We provide free consultations, and we can advise you on all aspects of maritime law and the benefits you are entitled to under the Jones Act, the Death on the High Seas Act, the principle of maintenance and cure, or the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A presidential panel is bringing to light the corporate carelessness that led to the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster and the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, according to Houston maritime attorneys Kurt Arnold and Jason Itkin.

Coverage in the Los Angeles Times indicates that during the panel’s recent hearings, co-chairman William Reilly said that BP, Halliburton and Transocean were each responsible “for one or more egregiously bad decisions” leading up to the disaster, while the other panel chair, Bob Graham, said the companies had created “a culture that did not promote safety, and that culture failed.”

The attorneys "look forward to seeing the panel’s ultimate findings, which we believe will show that the carelessness of each of these companies contributed to this tragedy,” says Arnold, a founding partner of the Houston maritime law firm, Arnold & Itkin LLP.

The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling has been investigating the disaster since May. The panel’s final report is expected to come out in January.

"We expect this panel will reveal how these companies, which were facing financial pressure at the time, rushed through a series of decisions without any regard for the consequences to their workers,” says Itkin, another founding partner of Arnold & Itkin LLP.

Arnold and Itkin have shared their maritime law expertise and insights about the incident with national and local media in the aftermath of the disaster, including National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered,” CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” the Houston Chronicle and Houston’s ABC television affiliate, among others.

The law firm is representing several offshore workers who were injured in the explosion.

To discuss a case with an experienced maritime lawyer, contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP, or call the maritime law office of Arnold & Itkin LLP toll free at 866-222-2606.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Scientists studying the Gulf of Mexico in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig catastrophe have found evidence that crude oil from the subsequent spill remains spread across many square miles of seafloor.  Much of the disastrous oil pollution on the surface and in the water column appears to have been consumed by ocean bacteria in the months since the breached well was sealed.  The situation appears to be far different on the seafloor, however.

As noted in online coverage of the environmental issues created by the Deepwater Horizon's destruction, Dr. Vernon Asper, professor of marine science at the University of Southern Mississippi, and his colleagues have analyzed seafloor core samples at various distances from the Macondo well.  The samples were retrieved by Dr. Smantha Joye, professor of marine sciences at the University of Georgia.

Core samples taken within approximately 50 miles of the well revealed a stratified composition, with old seafloor mud at the bottom, a middle layer presumed to be oil, and then a two-inch thick layer of a gooey substance on top that Dr. Asburn calls "slime snot."  Core samples taken at greater distances from the well revealed some oil pollution, while those taken farthest from the well brought up only unpolluted mud.

The concern is that the "goo" spread around the former well will suffocate the seafloor flora and fauna.  This, in turn, would affect the overall food chain, with a potentially significant impact on the Gulf ecosystem.  Dr. Asper noted in the online coverage that the destructive effects of the mat of goo covering the seafloor could include the starvation of deep-diving creatures, such as sperm whales, that feed on organisms which normally reside in the seafloor environs.

Dr. Joye published photos and descriptions of representative core samples in September, shortly after the samples were taken.

Study of the never-before-seen seafloor goo continues in an attempt to discern its definite source, its fate, and its effects on the marine environment.

To discuss a case with an experienced maritime lawyer, contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP, or call the maritime law office of Arnold & Itkin LLP toll free at 866-222-2606.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Preliminary findings by the National Oil Spill Commission, the presidential panel dedicated to investigating the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and resulting oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in April, reflect that the tragedy stemmed from “several very human decisions made by competent persons who missed signals."

In an interview with Bloomberg's Lizzie O'Leary, William Reilly, co-chairman of the commission and former Director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said that understanding what went wrong aboard the rig has been challenging because many of those manning the rig died in the explosion. Reilly did say, however, that many decisions were questionable and some were "outright wrong."

The panel identified the lack of standard protocols, such as the way gauges are designed and how the necessary information is disseminated, as one important lesson learned and an area where standards should be enforced. This led Reilly and the panel to recommend an "entity, much like exists in the nuclear industry, to raise the bar for safety everywhere" within the oil industry.

While other studies have found the resulting explosion was due to BP cutting corners to cut costs and to save money, the commission found no evidence that BP took any action that would intentionally jeopardize safety to cut costs.

The commission found that Halliburton Co., one of the companies along with BP and Transocean involved in operation of the rig, may have recommended use of an inadequate cement formula for sealing the well, contributing to the explosion.

BP may still be held liable in civil courts, resulting in fines and legal costs in the billions of dollars.

The maritime injury lawyers of Arnold & Itkin LLP have shared their legal expertise and insights about the Gulf Coast oil spill with national and local media in the aftermath of the disaster, including National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered,” CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” the Houston Chronicle and Houston’s ABC television affiliate, among others.

For more information about the firm, please visit Jones-Act-Maritime-Lawyer.com and LawyerForYou.com. For a free consultation about a maritime injury or accident, contact a maritime lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP by calling toll free at (866) 222-2606.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Federal judge Martin L. C. Feldman on November 3rd granted a motion by the federal government to dismiss claims challenging the government's first and second moratoriums on offshore deepwater drilling.

The Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation & Enforcement (BOEMRE) first issued a six-month blanket moratorium on all offshore deepwater drilling operations shortly after the oil rig explosion and the devastating oil spill that followed.  Judge Feldman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and based in New Orleans, enjoined that moratorium after it was subjected to a legal challenge.  According to Judge Feldman, the federal government failed to demonstrate that the facts it had gathered supported its sweeping moratorium.

In its place, the Interior Secretary enacted a new, second moratorium in an attempt to remedy the deficits identified by Judge Feldman.  But, the court said, at its core the second moratorium was "identical to the first."

The government lifted the second moratorium early on October 12th, claiming that its need had been obviated by enhanced safety requirements that had been imposed in the interim, and by other reductions in the threats facing the deepwater drilling industry.

Given that both moratoriums had been lifted, the government sought dismissal of the claims challenging them on the ground that the claims had been rendered moot.

Judge Feldman agreed.  The court observed that the suspension orders imposing both moratoriums had been lifted; the Secretary of Interior claimed no intention to institute a new moratorium; and the court had no right or authority to speculate that the government’s improper conduct would persist.

In lifting the moratorium, the court wrote, the "government cut the plaintiff's chief complaints at their roots and provided them with the specific relief they seek from this Court."

Some two weeks earlier in mid-October, Judge Feldman had overturned the Interior Department's notice to lessees, dubbed NTL-05, which imposed new requirements on all federal oil and gas lessees and operators located in both shallow and deep waters above the Outer Continental Shelf.  Judge Feldman found that the notice was a substantive rule which had been issued without compliance with mandatory procedures set out in the federal Administrative Procedure Act.  Since then, however, the Interior Department published an interim final rule covering the requirements of NTL-05 pursuant to the agency's emergency rulemaking authority.  That action could blunt the impact of the court's finding that NTL-05 was of no force and effect, once the emergency rulemaking process runs its course in the next few weeks.

Arnold & Itkin LLP attorneys serve clients in Texas and throughout the nation, handling maritime injury and many other types of complex cases.

If you have any questions regarding a maritime incident or have suffered a maritime injury, contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation or call our maritime law office toll free at 866-222-2606.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Tourist cruise vessels resemble floating cities, with all the attendant power demands of onboard systems for lighting, air conditioning, and heating.  While at sea, those power demands are met by a cruise ship's diesel generators.  Those generators, however, can produce significant amounts of soot, greenhouse gases, and other emissions routinely found in diesel exhaust.  The emissions can be of particular concern while a cruise vessel is docked in port, where meeting the vessel's energy requirements means local air quality can suffer as the generators remain in operation while the ship is otherwise idled, essentially operating as a shore-side hotel.

One strategy being adopted at U.S. ports and abroad is that of "cold ironing," or connecting a vessel's onboard electrical system to shore power.  The practice is underway on the west coast at the Port of Seattle and, most recently, San Francisco.  Cruise terminals in Southern California (Los Angeles and San Diego), Florida and New York likewise have plans to implement cold ironing at their cruise ship terminals, and indeed the state of California has imposed regulations mandating cold ironing of covered vessels over the next few years.

The benefits of cold ironing include not only improved air quality in the port environment and adjacent population areas, but also reduced energy consumption as vessels tap into energy produced more efficiently by large-scale power facilities.  Costs can be higher, however, as diesel continues to offer cheap energy in relation to onshore power.  In addition, cruise companies incur costs in retrofitting ships to be compatible with on-shore electricity.

In San Francisco's case, though, port authorities priced the on-shore power to be less expensive than typical costs for operating onboard power systems on diesel, thereby creating a financial incentive for cruise operators to take advantage of the more attractive power option.  The San Francisco shoreside power also results in zero air emissions because the energy for idled cruise ships is supplied by hydroelectric power.  San Francisco comes out ahead economically in light of the tourist dollars spent in the locale while cruise vessels remain in port.

To discuss a case with an experienced maritime lawyer, contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP, or call the maritime law office of Arnold & Itkin LLP toll free at 866-222-2606.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Act's immunity provision precludes negligence suit by federal observer injured while taking restroom break.

In Bauer v. MRAG Americas, Inc., No. 09-17254 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently considered the "immunity provision" of the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361, et seq. As explained by the Ninth Circuit, "Congress passed the . . . MMPA . . . in response to the concern that marine mammals 'are, or may be, in danger of extinction or depletion as a result of' human activities." Thus, under the MMPA and in conjunction with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq., the Secretary of Commerce may require vessels to have observers aboard to monitor compliance with fishing regulations and to obtain statistically reliable information on the species and number of marine mammals incidentally taken in the fishery.

Observers tasked with compliance monitoring and information gathering under the MMPA are considered federal employees, not employees of the vessel owner. "Having thrust these observers on board private vessels, however, Congress limited the vessel owners’ liability to the observers," the Ninth Circuit observed. The MMPA provides as a general rule that an observer “that is ill, disabled, injured, or killed from service as an observer on that vessel may not bring a civil action . . . against the vessel owner.” MMPA § 1383a(e)(7)(A).

In the action before the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiff was on a fishing vessel as an observer monitoring fishing operations, and the boat was underway with fishing activities in full swing. A cable snapped and injured the plaintiff while she was taking a brief bathroom break.

The court concluded that it was normal to expect that the plaintiff might need to take a bathroom break during the fishing voyage, and certainly she did not have the luxury of somehow stepping off the boat to do so. Common sense dictated that the injury she suffered occurred in the performance of her service as an observer on the vessel. This meant, then, that the immunity provision of the MMPA barred her suit.

Based upon its analysis, the court declared that the MMPA's immunity provision precludes a negligence suit by a federal observer injured while taking a restroom break.

If you have any questions regarding a maritime incident or have suffered a maritime injury, contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation or call our maritime law office toll free at 866-222-2606.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In September, Transocean Deepwater Drilling, Inc., sent a disappointing letter to those of its employees injured in April's horrific destruction of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, and who had not yet returned to work or obtained legal representation.  While Transocean claimed to be thinking of its workers and their welfare, it at the same time gave notice that the workers were soon to receive maritime law maintenance and cure benefits, apparently in place of the full salaries that the injured employees continued to receive in the months after the April catastrophe.  The disappointment and hypocrisy surrounding that development was widely recognized, as here.

Transocean's letter went further, however, offering a settlement to the injured workers:  "a lump sum in an amount equivalent to six months of your gross salary (excluding factors such as market premium and travel pay), in exchange for the execution of a release."

Houston maritime attorney Kurt Arnold, a partner in the law firm of Arnold & Itkin LLP, challenged the timing of Transocean's acts.  "All of this is calculated to pressure the families to settle quick and cheap," Arnold said.

Transocean's injured Deepwater Horizon workers deserve treatment significantly better than that reflected in the company's September settlement offer.

Arnold & Itkin LLP attorneys serve clients in Texas and throughout the nation, handling maritime injury and many other types of complex cases.

If you have any questions regarding a maritime incident or have suffered a maritime injury, contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation or call our maritime law office toll free at 866-222-2606.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Houston maritime attorneys Kurt Arnold and Jason Itkin say that last week’s news that cement used to seal the doomed Deepwater Horizon oil well before its blowout last April was known to be faulty fits the evolving track record of BP and Halliburton in the deadly incident.

“The negligence of BP and Halliburton that led to 11 deaths and the economic destruction of countless other lives in the Deepwater Horizon disaster is increasingly clear," Arnold says.

Arnold, a founding partner of Arnold & Itkin LLP, was reacting to a report from the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, which is investigating the mammoth oil spill.

The commission said on October 28 that it had found that the mixture called “cement” that was meant to temporarily seal the Deepwater Horizon well repeatedly failed lab tests before the April 20 blowout. BP operated the oil well owned by Transocean Ltd. Halliburton was BP’s cementing contractor.

The presidential commission said representatives of BP and Halliburton communicated about testing that showed the cement mixture would be “unstable,” but they proceeded with drilling anyway.

The oil rig exploded, killing 11 offshore workers, and sank to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. The resulting spill of millions of gallons of oil closed commercial fishing waters for several weeks.

“This was the failure of managers from BP and Halliburton who knew of the danger that existed and proceeded in what can only be described as a reckless manner," says Jason Itkin, another founding partner of Arnold & Itkin LLP.

Arnold and Itkin have shared their maritime law expertise and insights about the incident with national and local media in the aftermath of the disaster, including National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered,” CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” the Houston Chronicle and Houston’s ABC television affiliate, among others.

For a free consultation, contact a maritime lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP by calling toll free (866) 222-2606.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Congress earlier this year enacted the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010, amending Chapter 35 of United States Code Title 46 by adding new passenger vessel security and safety requirements, among other things.

The Act seeks to address a host of security and safety concerns, as evidenced by underlying Congressional findings that include:

• In 2007 alone, approximately 12,000,000 passengers were projected to take a cruise worldwide.
• Passengers on cruise vessels have an inadequate appreciation of their potential vulnerability to crime while on ocean voyages.
• Sexual violence, the disappearance of passengers from vessels on the high seas, and other serious crimes have occurred during luxury cruises.
  
• Crimes at sea can involve attacks both by passengers and crewmembers on other passengers and crewmembers.
  
• It is not known precisely how often crimes occur on cruise vessels or exactly how many people have disappeared during ocean voyages because cruise line companies do not make comprehensive, crime-related data readily available to the public.
• It can be difficult for professional crime investigators to immediately secure an alleged crime scene on a cruise vessel, recover evidence of an onboard offense, and identify or interview potential witnesses to the alleged crime.
• Most cruise vessels that operate into and out of United States ports are registered under the laws of another country, and investigations and prosecutions of crimes against passengers and crewmembers may involve the laws and authorities of multiple nations.
• The Department of Homeland Security has found it necessary to establish 500-yard security zones around cruise vessels to limit the risk of terrorist attack. Recently piracy has dramatically increased throughout the world.

  
  

The new Act expressly requires that cruise vessels adopt a variety of measures intended to enhance passenger safety.  Many of the measures are the same or similar to those that travelers routinely encounter when visiting popular tourist destinations, such as installation of peep holes in passenger stateroom doors or other means to allow identification of someone outside the stateroom, the use of time-sensitive security latches on cabin doors in new vessels, and the use of security camera systems to monitor for and record unlawful activity.

The Act further imposes crime reporting requirements and, after an interim period in which standards are to be developed, cruise ships must have on board at least one crew member certified in preventing, detecting, preserving evidence of, and reporting criminal activities in the international maritime environment on passenger vessels.

According to media reports, the Cruise Lines International Association ultimately applauded the new law for enhancing the consistency and clarity of security laws governing the industry.

To discuss a case with an experienced maritime lawyer, contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP, or call the maritime law office of Arnold & Itkin LLP toll free at 866-222-2606

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link