Carnival ship Held in port, after lawsuit from family who lost member on Concordia

12:45 p.m. EDT) -- Questions are swirling around today's scheduled departure of the 2,758-passenger Carnival Triumph after a judge ordered the ship held in Galveston, according to the Bloomberg news service. The move comes as part of a $10 million lawsuit filed in federal court in Galveston by relatives of a German tourist who died in the Costa Concordia disaster.

 

The ship is scheduled to leave at 6 p.m. EDT for a five day Western Caribbean voyage. The Galveston Daily News is reporting that the port director is advising passengers on the next cruise to carry on with their plans, and at this time, Carnival cruise director John Heald says on his Facebook page that embarkation has begun.

 

According to a statement provided to Cruise Critic by Carnival, "We are aware of the situation and are working through the appropriate legal channels to resolve it. The litigation in question relates to a matter that involved a European-based cruise line that is a sister line to Carnival Cruise Lines. We are optimistic that the issues regarding the Carnival Triumph will be resolved and the ship will depart on its scheduled voyage later today."

 

Carnival Cruise Lines is the parent of Costa Cruises, whose ship hit a rock off the coast of Italy and capsized on January 13. More than 30 people died in the tragedy, and the ship remains on its side near the island of Giglio.

 

Bloomberg reports that the warrant ordering the ship held in port states that the “court finds that the conditions for an attachment of defendants' joint and collective property within this district, mainly the MS Carnival Triumph, appear to exist upon an admiralty and maritime claim.”

 

Furthermore, Bloomberg says,Triumph would be allowed to unload passengers and cargo and move between berths until a “prompt hearing” can be scheduled.

 

We'll be keeping our eye on developments

http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=4793

*Just saw this was also posted in the Concordia thread*

From one perspective, this entire situation calls in doubt all of those posters who firmly stated for weeks now that the Costa cruise ticket contracts require that all legal action must occur in Italy and all U.S. courts would not take any action here due to this. These folks also stated that the assets of Carnival Corp were immune to monetary actions due to the Concordia being a Costa ship.

It now appears that this entire facade has come crumbling down to earth. I have stated in the past that U.S. courts regularly voided contracts in cases involving gross or criminal negligence. The Costa cruise ticket contracts are not worth the paper they are printed are when the ships' captain and officers are under criminal indictment. Also there are numerous cases where a U.S. based holding company has been found to be financially responsible in court for the failures of the overseas subsidiaries.

From one perspective, this entire situation calls in doubt all of those posters who firmly stated for weeks now that the Costa cruise ticket contracts require that all legal action must occur in Italy and all U.S. courts would not take any action here due to this. These folks also stated that the assets of Carnival Corp were immune to monetary actions due to the Concordia being a Costa ship.

 

It now appears that this entire facade has come crumbling down to earth. I have stated in the past that U.S. courts regularly voided contracts in cases involving gross or criminal negligence. The Costa cruise ticket contracts are not worth the paper they are printed are when the ships' captain and officers are under criminal indictment. Also there are numerous cases where a U.S. based holding company has been found to be financially responsible in court for the failures of the overseas subsidiaries.

The seizure of the ship and the posting of the bond is to preserve certain rights until the merits of the case including jurisdiction are decided etc. Litigation is a lengthy process. No one has won or lost just because Carnival will be required to post a bond to keep the sail away party as scheduled. The judge requiring the bond hasn't addressed any aspect of the cruise contract yet. The cases that are relevant are the cases dealing specifically with a forum selection clause. A pending criminal indictment does not change the contract for purposes of civil litigation.

not legal advice

From one perspective, this entire situation calls in doubt all of those posters who firmly stated for weeks now that the Costa cruise ticket contracts require that all legal action must occur in Italy and all U.S. courts would not take any action here due to this. These folks also stated that the assets of Carnival Corp were immune to monetary actions due to the Concordia being a Costa ship.

 

It now appears that this entire facade has come crumbling down to earth. I have stated in the past that U.S. courts regularly voided contracts in cases involving gross or criminal negligence. The Costa cruise ticket contracts are not worth the paper they are printed are when the ships' captain and officers are under criminal indictment. Also there are numerous cases where a U.S. based holding company has been found to be financially responsible in court for the failures of the overseas subsidiaries.

As they say..BINGO!

AKK

The seizure of the ship and the posting of the bond is to preserve certain rights until the merits of the case including jurisdiction are decided etc. Litigation is a lengthy process. No one has won or lost just because Carnival will be required to post a bond to keep the sail away party as scheduled. The judge requiring the bond hasn't addressed any aspect of the cruise contract yet. The cases that are relevant are the cases dealing specifically with a forum selection clause. A pending criminal indictment does not change the contract for purposes of civil litigation.

 

not legal advice

Maybe not legal advise.....but from what I know...your right on target Kate

AKK

Carnival Triumph Released to Sail After Deal Struck, Lawyer Says

Carnival simply posted a bond as provided for in the Federal Civil Rules of Procedure. What a waste of time and distress for the passengers. Legal showboating to nowheresville. As if Carnival wouldn't have been good for the money.

Carnival simply posted a bond as provided for in the Federal Civil Rules of Procedure. What a waste of time and distress for the passengers.

Distress for passengers caused by an incompetant judge and a Greedy lawyer! yet again.

Distress for passengers caused by an incompetant judge and a Greedy lawyer! yet again.

Greedy lawyer..........yes!....Judge was just following the law.......he had no choice but to honor the suit and conditions.

I agree with Keel Haul.........Carnivail again messed up and put alot of there passingers in a scary postion. Carnivail knew about the suit in advance (they have to be advised in advance) and could have settled the letter of undertaking or the bond fast and qiuetly.

AKK

There are a whole set of procedures relating to shipboard matters. Certain practitioners were allowed to call themselves "Proctors in Admiralty" because of their expertise in this rather arcane set of rules. Jurisdiction over the vessel is obtained by attaching a "Plaster" on the ship. generally nailed to the foremast. Difficult to do today, so Duct Tape is used. If done, the insurance underwriters produce a bond to cover the value of the vessel and the lien is removed. The Federal Magistrate simply reviews the papers to see if the formalities have been observed. This particular bit of legal showboating was done by someone with no knowledge of maritime law, the Contract of Passage or the concept of Limitation of Liability. But it does get publicity for the lawyer, because the idiots doing the TV standup never look beyond their noses.

There are a whole set of procedures relating to shipboard matters. Certain practitioners were allowed to call themselves "Proctors in Admiralty" because of their expertise in this rather arcane set of rules. Jurisdiction over the vessel is obtained by attaching a "Plaster" on the ship. generally nailed to the foremast. Difficult to do today, so Duct Tape is used. If done, the insurance underwriters produce a bond to cover the value of the vessel and the lien is removed. The Federal Magistrate simply reviews the papers to see if the formalities have been observed. This particular bit of legal showboating was done by someone with no knowledge of maritime law, the Contract of Passage or the concept of Limitation of Liability. But it does get publicity for the lawyer, because the idiots doing the TV standup never look beyond their noses.

Well put!

AKK

I concur, I wonder what idiot within Carnival took no notice of the rules you quote and let it go to the wire.Another public relations and shareholder relations cock up as well as distress for the pax.

Until the motion to request a seizure order was filed, Carnival wouldn't have known or reasonably anticipated that one of its dozens of ships in multiple locales would be the subject of such an order. The court wouldn't have had a mechanism to accept the bond. Congrats to Carnival legal team for acting swiftly and emerging Triumphant on the release of the ship on a Saturday nonetheless. And to the court too. Federal courts aren't known for putting in much weekend time.

(not legal advice-just cruise flotsam and jetsam)

There are a whole set of procedures relating to shipboard matters. Certain practitioners were allowed to call themselves "Proctors in Admiralty" because of their expertise in this rather arcane set of rules. Jurisdiction over the vessel is obtained by attaching a "Plaster" on the ship. generally nailed to the foremast. Difficult to do today, so Duct Tape is used. If done, the insurance underwriters produce a bond to cover the value of the vessel and the lien is removed. The Federal Magistrate simply reviews the papers to see if the formalities have been observed. This particular bit of legal showboating was done by someone with no knowledge of maritime law, the Contract of Passage or the concept of Limitation of Liability. But it does get publicity for the lawyer, because the idiots doing the TV standup never look beyond their noses.

Bravo OleSalt!! I vote for an extra ration of rum for you tonight. Not surprisingly, the showboat will continue. The attorney managed to get his name mentioned and says he is from a group targeting the whole industry for all the sunk ships and specifically the Triumph because he claims it has similar problems to the Concordia. He takes the opportunity to announce the posting of the bond like it was a major victory. Hope he is up on his Italian law too.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-31/carnival-triumph-released-to-sail-after-deal-struck-lawyer-says.html

There are a whole set of procedures relating to shipboard matters. Certain practitioners were allowed to call themselves "Proctors in Admiralty" because of their expertise in this rather arcane set of rules. Jurisdiction over the vessel is obtained by attaching a "Plaster" on the ship. generally nailed to the foremast. Difficult to do today, so Duct Tape is used. If done, the insurance underwriters produce a bond to cover the value of the vessel and the lien is removed. The Federal Magistrate simply reviews the papers to see if the formalities have been observed. This particular bit of legal showboating was done by someone with no knowledge of maritime law, the Contract of Passage or the concept of Limitation of Liability. But it does get publicity for the lawyer, because the idiots doing the TV standup never look beyond their noses.

Bravo OleSalt!! I vote for an extra ration of rum for you tonight. Not surprisingly, the showboat will continue. The attorney managed to get his name mentioned and says he is from a group targeting the whole industry for all the sunk ships and specifically the Triumph because he claims it has similar problems to the Concordia. He takes the opportunity to announce the posting of the bond like it was a major victory. Hope he is up on his Italian law too.

Having a ship seized right before a cruise is not a way to win the hearts and minds of the cruising public. The industry has a desirable commodity to sell. Capitalistically, it has chosen to sell that commodity with attached conditions related to the forums for litigation, which in turn keeps the ticket prices affordable. The United States Supreme Court has cited this very rationale as a reason to uphold cruise contracts. Having a ship seized in Texas that belongs to the parent company of a company based in Italy for the wrongful death of a German citizen is exactly what these forum clauses are designed to avoid--having one company, be it Royal Caribbean or Carnival required to litigate in multiple forums at once at massive expense. For all those cheerleaders thrilled that this might be happening to Carnival, bear in mind that your own favorite cruise lines would heartily disagree with your sentiments and will price your future tickets accordingly should the current caselaw be suddenly reversed.

(I've no clue why this posted in parts--probably something I did when I spilt my tea).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-31/carnival-triumph-released-to-sail-after-deal-struck-lawyer-says.html

That's a big ten-four on the fare increase Kate. Some of those cheerleading this misguided action would do well to be careful of what they wish for.

There's a robust discussion of this over on the Carnival forum--tons of information.

More grog!

Until the motion to request a seizure order was filed, Carnival wouldn't have known or reasonably anticipated that one of its dozens of ships in multiple locales would be the subject of such an order. The court wouldn't have had a mechanism to accept the bond. Congrats to Carnival legal team for acting swiftly and emerging Triumphant on the release of the ship on a Saturday nonetheless. And to the court too. Federal courts aren't known for putting in much weekend time.

 

(not legal advice-just cruise flotsam and jetsam)

Hi Kate.

Carnivial knew about the suit and the request for security of 10m before the Marshall came. The plantive has to advise the defentent first and give them a chance to provide the 10m before they go to court to try enforce it.

AKK

Skipper, I haven't seen the filings but typically what will happen is the motion for seizure order is filed. The defendant then has a chance to respond. The plaintiff's attorney stated that it was designed to be a "shot across the bow". I don't recall this type of legal grandstanding to have occurred in a suit against a cruiseline. Generally, when a defendant is sued, they don't automatically seek to post a bond for fear that the plaintiff will seek a seizure order of assets, especially with a big corporation like Carnival with substantial assets. The posting of the bond is to secure the release of the asset like bail is to secure the release of a person. To use an analogy, until you are arrested, you can't bail out. The plaintiff's attorney used a technicality to gain attention to its cause, knowing full well that Carnival would be able to bond the Triumph out of its "arrest".

(not legal advice--even though I play a lawyer in real life :)

I'm glad in some ways someone is doing something, we just keep getting pushed from Shanghai to Carnival Australia and now someone else in Australia, in the meantime we hope our lawyers are doing something. While all that is happening I am still paying off credit cards for all the stuff on the bottom of the ocean and paying for all the replacement items, even new suitcases bought last week don't come cheap.

Hi Kate.

 

Carnivial knew about the suit and the request for security of 10m before the Marshall came. The plantive has to advise the defentent first and give them a chance to provide the 10m before they go to court to try enforce it.

 

AKK

I'm glad in some ways someone is doing something, we just keep getting pushed from Shanghai to Carnival Australia and now someone else in Australia, in the meantime we hope our lawyers are doing something. While all that is happening I am still paying off credit cards for all the stuff on the bottom of the ocean and paying for all the replacement items, even new suitcases bought last week don't come cheap.

There are a whole set of procedures relating to shipboard matters. Certain practitioners were allowed to call themselves "Proctors in Admiralty" because of their expertise in this rather arcane set of rules. Jurisdiction over the vessel is obtained by attaching a "Plaster" on the ship. generally nailed to the foremast. Difficult to do today, so Duct Tape is used. If done, the insurance underwriters produce a bond to cover the value of the vessel and the lien is removed. The Federal Magistrate simply reviews the papers to see if the formalities have been observed. This particular bit of legal showboating was done by someone with no knowledge of maritime law, the Contract of Passage or the concept of Limitation of Liability. But it does get publicity for the lawyer, because the idiots doing the TV standup never look beyond their noses.

Excellent analysis of the moves and motives.:)

TOO many lawyers with TOO much time on their hands.:(

Carnival Triumph Released to Sail After Deal Struck, Lawyer Says

Mickey Money saves the day.

Skipper, I haven't seen the filings but typically what will happen is the motion for seizure order is filed. The defendant then has a chance to respond. The plaintiff's attorney stated that it was designed to be a "shot across the bow". I don't recall this type of legal grandstanding to have occurred in a suit against a cruiseline. Generally, when a defendant is sued, they don't automatically seek to post a bond for fear that the plaintiff will seek a seizure order of assets, especially with a big corporation like Carnival with substantial assets. The posting of the bond is to secure the release of the asset like bail is to secure the release of a person. To use an analogy, until you are arrested, you can't bail out. The plaintiff's attorney used a technicality to gain attention to its cause, knowing full well that Carnival would be able to bond the Triumph out of its "arrest".

 

(not legal advice--even though I play a lawyer in real life :)

That is basicly what I meant...you as always just say it better!

This case of course does have alot more showboating in it!

AKK

Relevant article from a lawyer versed in this area on the tactical wisdom of the Triumph "jacking".

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2012/03/articles/passenger-rights/a-shot-across-the-bow-lawyers-for-german-tourist-killed-in-costa-concordia-disaster-seize-the-carnival-triumph/