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

The National Mariners Association, a non-profit organization which describes its mission as improving the safety, health and social stability of American mariners, has released an update to its earlier report on the state of "inspection" requirements for domestic towing vessels.  The report, entitled "Examination" of Towing Vessels Is Not "Inspection" - The Background Of The Towing Vessel "Bridging" Program, sets out the recent history of towing vessel safety regulations and enforcement and urges the final adoption of a mandatory inspection program.

The Association's report makes particular note of the United States Coast Guard's Cooperative Towing Vessel Examination Program (CTVEP), under which vessel owners could receive decals if their tow vessels passed Coast Guard examinations, and such vessels generally would not be boarded by Coast Guard personnel unless they later became involved in a serious accident or otherwise demonstrated a flagrant violation of law.  According to the Association, however, the program never came to fruition as a widespread and effective means of safety improvement.

In July 2009, the Coast Guard announced its Towing Vessel Bridging Program (TVBP), which was adopted to ensure that the agency and the industry were prepared for impending new inspection requirements.  According to the Association's report, this was, in essence, a revitalization of the CTVEP, under which vessel owners could arrange voluntary Coast Guard examinations.  The current requirements for uninspected towing vessels are set out in a comprehensive Coast Guard publication.

Now, in keeping with § 701(c) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, which was signed into law on October 15, 2010, there is to be a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding inspection requirements for towing vessels, with a final rule issued no later than one year from the Act's date of enactment.

Although expressing skepticism about the Coast Guard's ability or willingness to timely achieve final adoption of formal inspection regulations through its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, the Association urges towing vessel officers to (1) ensure their compliance with existing regulations and (2) prepare for issuance of new inspection requirements.

As the Association notes, "All of the good practices the Coast Guard has suggested during their vessel examinations probably will be required by the new regulations."

Hopefully those efforts will result in a safer working environment for mariners aboard towing vessels, with attendant improved safety for those who live and work on the country's commercial waterways.

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
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Unrelated accidents recently struck the south Texas coastal region as a fishing vessel required a United States Coast Guard rescue when it began taking on water, a dredging vessel ran aground, and a broken pipeline resulted in a vegetable oil spill.  The incidents, for which there are no reported personal injuries, highlight the variety of risks associated with routine maritime operations across the Gulf Coast.

The Coast Guard reported on January 21 that it was responding to a call from a fishing vessel in distress some 50 miles out to sea off Corpus Christi, Texas. The captain of the Ella Deonna, a 65-foot long-liner fishing vessel, radioed that the vessel was taking on water in its engine room.

The Coast Guard launched an Air Station Corpus Christi MH-65C Dolphin helicopter and crew, a 45-foot Response Boat-Medium and crew from Station Port Aransas, and the Coast Guard Cutter Amberjack to the scene.  The helicopter arrived on-scene and delivered a dewatering pump to the Ella Deonna [video].  According to Dolphin pilot Lt. Rob Stotz, "The crew of this boat was proactive," and the "boat is still floating because they were prepared with patching equipment and the crew was knowledgable."

Separately, media reports indicate that several days later, on January 24, a dredging vessel ran aground near South Padre Island, Texas.  The 305-foot cutter Texas, a suction dredge vessel, ran aground at a Brownsville-Santiago Pass jetty during difficult weather.  The vessel, owned by Great Lakes Dredge and Dock, suffered significant damage and was towed to Port Isabel for repairs.  The crew apparently minimized the risk of environmental pollution by transferring fuel into undamaged onboard tanks.  The dredge was in the area under contract with the Army Corps of Engineers as part of a project to improve the Brownsville Ship Channel and assist in renourishment of South Padre Island beaches.  An investigating officer with Coast Guard Sector Corpus Christi noted that the accident was being reviewed to determine if negligence was involved.

Most recently, a pipeline ruptured at the Port of Brownsville on January 25, leading to a release of vegetable oil into the Brownsville Ship Channel.  The spill reportedly occurred when the oil was being transferred between containers at the TransMontaigne facility; the spilled oil then made its way down an abandoned pipe that ran beneath the channel, causing a leak into the water.  Company personnel, port staff, Coast Guard personnel, and the Spill Response Team of the Texas General Land Office responded.  Ultimately the spill was corralled by a containment boom.  A cleanup contractor was retained, who set to work toward recovery of an estimated 150 barrels of the vegetable oil.

It's fortunate that, apparently, no person was injured during the recent incidents.  All too often the hazards of employment in the maritime environment result in serious injuries to workers, leaving them unable to provide for themselves and their families.

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 866-2606.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In December, Plaintiffs Liaison Counsel in the ongoing BP Deepwater Horizon multi-district litigation moved to invoke the supervision of the presiding U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana based on concerns about the Release and Covenant Not To Sue which putative class members are asked to sign in exchange for receipt of payment from the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF).  The motion challenges the notion that putative class members are being asked to, among other things:  execute a full release of all defendants, not just BP; release claims for punitive damages and other relief not recognized by the GCCF; and release the claims of spouses, minors, and their business interests.  This, despite the fact that BP and GCCF have, according to the motion, confusingly represented the GCCF as "independent" and urged putative class members not to retain counsel.  The motion explains that:

While the true extent of the relationship between the GCCF and BP is unclear, the GCCF is undoubtedly acting pursuant to a BP mandate: Settle as many claims as possible to avoid lawsuits. There is nothing inherently improper about this, and the opportunity to obtain emergency, interim or even final relief may be in the best interest of some claimants.

However, the potential value of this effort is severely undermined when promoted through inaccurate, incomplete or incorrect communications and inducements which, intentionally or not, lead to class members’ misapprehension of their alternatives and choices.

Now, an expert tasked by the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee to review aspects of the operation of the GCCF has offered his declaration in support of these same concerns.

Edward F. Sherman, Professor of Law at Tulane University Law School in New Orleans, addresses the operation and role of claims facilities in complex litigation in his five-page declaration.  As to the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, Professor Sherman notes that the GCCF was established, either by BP or by fund administrator Kenneth Feinberg's law firm, to administer claims on behalf of BP in keeping with the company's legal duties as a "responsible party" under the Oil Pollution Act.  Professor Sherman concludes further, however, that Mr. Feinberg and BP have repeatedly represented Mr. Feinberg as operating independently of the company, yet he consulted with BP about the standards for payment of claims, and his firm is to be paid $850,000 per month in addition to expenses and the possibility of further compensation.  The fee arrangement, Professor Sherman notes, was not publicized, and most claimants would not have known of it, so that they would not be able to decide whether it was something they should take into account before accepting a payment offer from the GCCF.

Professor Sherman expresses additional concern regarding statements by Mr. Feinberg, as an "independent" administrator (as well as an attorney), indicating that claimants would be better off settling their claims with the GCCF rather than litigating.

Professor Sherman goes on to address a new development in the form of BP's hiring of private law firms to provide representation for claimants.  Professor Sherman is careful not to impugn the impartiality of such firms, but he does conclude that the arrangement raises questions and, at the least, claimants ought to know how an attorney who is giving them advice is being paid.

Finally, "The kind of release required by the GCCF in order for a claimant to receive a final payment also raises question as to how independent the GCCF is," Professor Sherman declares.  The release imposes a number of restrictions, including that claimants give up all claims against BP.  Such restrictions weigh heavily in favor of the defendants, especially BP, according to Professor Sherman.

Thus, Professor Sherman opines that the court should limit or clarify the GCCF's communications with putative class members and public announcements concerning its associations with defendant BP so as to address these significant concerns and shortcomings.

BP and certain individual plaintiffs have opposed the motion seeking the Court's supervision filed by the Plaintiffs Liaison Counsel.

Arnold & Itkin LLP, is a Houston, Texas-based maritime accident and injury law firm that represents several Transocean workers who were injured in the explosion and sinking of the BP Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig.

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 a recent unpublished decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, considered whether an injured worker was in fact a "seaman" for admiralty law purposes.  The issue was contested by a defendant who asserted that it was entitled to a jury trial because the plaintiff sued strictly under state common and statutory law.

The plaintiff was injured aboard the vessel Hercules while the vessel rested within a protected boat slip, yet on navigable waters.  The injury occurred during testing of rigging designed and manufactured by the defendant in preparation for a project to lift some 2,000 tons on-site in the Gulf of Mexico.

Two lifts were performed successfully, but certain rigging equipment failed during a third lift.  Debris was scattered, causing injury to the plaintiff's hand and leg.

Immediately before trial in the subsequent personal injury suit, the plaintiff settled with his employer.  The defendant rigging manufacturer then demanded a jury trial.  This raised the issue whether the plaintiff's activity at the time of injury was so closely related to activity traditionally subject to admiralty jurisdiction that admiralty law should apply, with the result that no jury trial right would exist.

The court ruled that this was the case.  The incident that gave rise to the plaintiff's injury was not merely "fortuitously and incidentally connected" to admiralty in such a way that it bore no relationship to traditional maritime activity.  Rather, the court said, the injuries alleged by the employee fell within the type that occurred in maritime settings.  Specifically, the plaintiff's employer was testing a rigging device constructed by the manufacturer for use in anticipated offshore lifts.  That intended use was clearly known to the manufacturer, namely that its product was intended for offshore rather than land-based lifting.

Thus the plaintiff was a "seaman," the court had jurisdiction over all claims pursuant to the Jones Act and the General Maritime Law, and no jury trial was warranted.

The court went on to conclude that the plaintiff suffered some $1.9 million in damages due to his maritime personal injury during the failed rigging test.

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

A national commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill correctly concluded that the deadly and costly accident was the culmination of years of industry and government complacency and a lack of attention to safety, Texas offshore injury lawyer Jason Itkin said this week.

The report, issued January 11 by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, called for an overhaul of the approach of government and industry to drilling safety.

“We know that lack of attention to safety is dangerous. We’ve represented hundreds of injured offshore workers and repeatedly seen the lack of safety precautions that lead to preventable offshore accidents,” said Itkin, a partner in Arnold & Itkin LLP, a Houston, Texas-based maritime accident and injury law firm that represents several injured Transocean workers.

As offshore platforms drill in deeper waters where most of the oil resources remain, only systematic reforms to industry drilling practices and government oversight will reduce the chances of a future large-scale disaster similar to the Deepwater Horizon, the report concluded.

An explosion and fire aboard the Deepwater Horizon in April 2010 killed 11 maritime workers, injured dozens and created one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history. BP was leasing the Deepwater Horizon from Transocean at the time of the fatal offshore accident and drilling about 50 miles off the Louisiana coast.

Houston offshore injury attorney Kurt Arnold, a partner in Arnold & Itkin LLP, said improvements to drilling safety would directly benefit offshore workers and indirectly help other Gulf coast industries.

“We’ve seen the harm the BP oil spill caused working families and many businesses along the Gulf from Texas to Louisiana to Mississippi,” he said. “We understand their struggles because we’ve sat in their homes and on the porches and listened. Everyone benefits from safer drilling practices that preserve clean beaches and open fishing grounds.”

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

Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis has announced that she will re-establish the charter of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH).

MACOSH was established in early 1995 to provide guidance to OSHA's Assistant Secretary, recognizing that the maritime workplace, which presents complex and sensitive issues, warranted special attention due to high injury and illness rates and the specialized nature of some occupations.

MACOSH is intended to address the concerns of the entire maritime community, focusing on the shipyard and marine cargo (longshoring) handling industries.  Its specific objectives are to make recommendations on safety and health issues related to: (1) reducing injuries and illnesses in the maritime industries, (2) improving OSHA outreach and training programs through the use of innovative partnerships, and (3) expediting the development and promulgation of OSHA maritime standards.

MACOSH is comprised of 15 members selected to provide diversity and balance, both in terms of segments of the maritime industry represented (e.g., shipyard employment, longshoring, and marine terminal industries), and in the views or interests represented by the members.

The lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP are aggressive advocates who understand the complexities and legalities of maritime law and have a successful track record of verdicts and settlements. If you or a loved one have been injured in a maritime accident, call us 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

The ongoing Deepwater Horizon multi-district oil spill litigation moved forward in early January 2011, in the form of three pretrial orders issued by United States District Judge Carl J. Barbier.

In Pre-Trial Order No. 21, the court resolved a dispute as to the proper location for planned depositions of BP employees later in the month.  Judge Barbier concluded that the depositions should go forward in New Orleans, rather than in Houston as preferred by BP.  Judge Barbier concluded the court had authority to implement case management, including the determination of the site of depositions, as the mutli-district litigation transferee court.  Thus, finding that the center of gravity of the action was nearest the Eastern District of Louisiana, and that other pertinent factors favored holding the depositions in New Orleans, the court directed that the first round of depositions of BP employees shall take place in New Orleans.

In Pre-Trial Order No. 22, the court granted the federal government's motion for an order governing its obligation to preserve documents and electronically-stored information potentially relevant to claims and defenses in the Deepwater Horizon multi-district litigation.  Among other things, the court's order directs that the United States shall take reasonable steps to preserve all presently existing potentially relevant information currently in its possession, or which comes into its possession in the future.

Finally, in Pre-Trial Order No. 23, the court gives notice to certain unrepresented "dispersant" defendants that the depositions of BP employees regarding well blow-out and spill, among other issues, will be going forward on or after January 18, 2011, in Houston.  The court's order states in no uncertain terms that if an unrepresented defendant chooses not to participate in the scheduled depositions, it will have waived its right to do so and will not be granted an opportunity to re-take any deposition.

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

BP has continued to see gains in its share price even as its Gulf Coast beach cleanup effort winds down and uncertainty remains about the long-term effects of April's enormous Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

BP's late-2010 "deep cleaning" project, intended to remove buried oil tar from Gulf Coast beaches in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, is approaching an end as the industrial scouring of shoreline sands covers its last remaining miles.  According to media reports, BP elected to employ heavy equipment, using industrial diggers, conveyor systems, dump trucks, and other machinery to process tons of beach sand through screens intended to filter out buried tar balls.  The work raised concerns about new environmental damage even as some expressed doubt about its efficacy, noting that BP itself admits new tar balls continue to come ashore even now.

While the controversial deep-cleaning effort winds down, BP's valuation in the market is on the upswing.  Speculation that Royal Dutch Shell might be interested in a merger with BP, together with recent comments by Gulf Coast Claims Facility administrator Kenneth Feinberg, may have led to a recent jump in BP's share price.  Feinberg recently expressed optimism that only half the $20 billion allocated to the Deepwater Horizon compensation fund might be required to satisfy claims for economic losses associated with the devastating oil spill.  Still, Feinberg was careful to distance himself from the legal actions pending against BP, which could result in substantial damage awards.  Additional cleanup costs would come from the fund, as well, making BP's final remediation liability unknown.

Meanwhile, the long-term damage to those who live and work along the Gulf Coast, as well as the Gulf of Mexico marine environment, remains uncertain.  Fishermen in waters off Florida offer anecdotal reports of reduced catches which they blame on oil pollution from BP's Macondo well, while oeanographers and other scientists express continued concern about the harmfulness of even low levels of petroleum contamination in the water column and on the Gulf seabed.  The latter, in response to a mid-December U.S. Coast Guard report indicating that no further offshore cleanup is warranted based on federal government scientists' findings that oil quantities in the water have dropped below harmful levels.

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