Concordia News: Please Post Here

~edited~

Probably a maneuver to effect service of process and attract attention. A bit of ship chasing possibly on the part of the plaintiff's legal team. In any event, Carnival can post a bond and secure a release of the ship. The company can stipulate to service without waiving jurisductional objections, of which there will be many given the cruise contract in this case and the overwhelming weight of caselaw including a Supreme Court opinion upholding the contractual forum selection clauses for cruise passengers who cruise on such contracts. Not likely the Supreme Court will require Carnival be required to defend lawsuits in all fifty states. Specific forum selection clauses are favored by the Court to avoid having a defendant defend in multiple forums at once.

Excerpts from Federal Rules of Civil Procedure--

5) Release of Property.

(a) Special Bond. Whenever process of maritime attachment and garnishment or process in rem is issued the execution of such process shall be stayed, or the property released, on the giving of security, to be approved by the court or clerk, or by stipulation of the parties, conditioned to answer the judgment of the court or of any appellate court. The parties may stipulate the amount and nature of such security. In the event of the inability or refusal of the parties so to stipulate the court shall fix the principal sum of the bond or stipulation at an amount sufficient to cover the amount of the plaintiff's claim fairly stated with accrued interest and costs; but the principal sum shall in no event exceed (i) twice the amount of the plaintiff's claim or (ii) the value of the property on due appraisement, whichever is smaller. The bond or stipulation shall be conditioned for the payment of the principal sum and interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum.

(b) General Bond. The owner of any vessel may file a general bond or stipulation, with sufficient surety, to be approved by the court, conditioned to answer the judgment of such court in all or any actions that may be brought thereafter in such court in which the vessel is attached or arrested. Thereupon the execution of all such process against such vessel shall be stayed so long as the amount secured by such bond or stipulation is at least double the aggregate amount claimed by plaintiffs in all actions begun and pending in which such vessel has been attached or arrested. Judgments and remedies may be had on such bond or stipulation as if a special bond or stipulation had been filed in each of such actions. The district court may make necessary orders to carry this rule into effect, particularly as to the giving of proper notice of any action against or attachment of a vessel for which a general bond has been filed. Such bond or stipulation shall be indorsed by the clerk with a minute of the actions wherein process is so stayed. Further security may be required by the court at any time.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_E

**********not legal advice*************

Probably a maneuver to effect service of process and attract attention. A bit of ship chasing possibly on the part of the plaintiff's legal team. In any event, Carnival can post a bond and secure a release of the ship. The company can stipulate to service without waiving jurisductional objections, of which there will be many given the cruise contract in this case and the overwhelming weight of caselaw including a Supreme Court opinion upholding the contractual forum selection clauses for cruise passengers who cruise on such contracts. Not likely the Supreme Court will require Carnival be required to defend lawsuits in all fifty states. Specific forum selection clauses are favored by the Court to avoid having a defendant defend in multiple forums at once.

 

Excerpts from Federal Rules of Civil Procedure--

 

5) Release of Property.

(a) Special Bond. Whenever process of maritime attachment and garnishment or process in rem is issued the execution of such process shall be stayed, or the property released, on the giving of security, to be approved by the court or clerk, or by stipulation of the parties, conditioned to answer the judgment of the court or of any appellate court. The parties may stipulate the amount and nature of such security. In the event of the inability or refusal of the parties so to stipulate the court shall fix the principal sum of the bond or stipulation at an amount sufficient to cover the amount of the plaintiff's claim fairly stated with accrued interest and costs; but the principal sum shall in no event exceed (i) twice the amount of the plaintiff's claim or (ii) the value of the property on due appraisement, whichever is smaller. The bond or stipulation shall be conditioned for the payment of the principal sum and interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum.

(b) General Bond. The owner of any vessel may file a general bond or stipulation, with sufficient surety, to be approved by the court, conditioned to answer the judgment of such court in all or any actions that may be brought thereafter in such court in which the vessel is attached or arrested. Thereupon the execution of all such process against such vessel shall be stayed so long as the amount secured by such bond or stipulation is at least double the aggregate amount claimed by plaintiffs in all actions begun and pending in which such vessel has been attached or arrested. Judgments and remedies may be had on such bond or stipulation as if a special bond or stipulation had been filed in each of such actions. The district court may make necessary orders to carry this rule into effect, particularly as to the giving of proper notice of any action against or attachment of a vessel for which a general bond has been filed. Such bond or stipulation shall be indorsed by the clerk with a minute of the actions wherein process is so stayed. Further security may be required by the court at any time.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_E

 

**********not legal advice*************

Morning Kate...........don't you just love legalezeeeeee.

that short of it is...

1. The owners/underwriters(P and I, protection and indeminty) can post a *Letter of undertaking*, which means the owners/P and I garrenttes to the court that they have set aside the funds to cover any award made in the court trail.

2. The Owners/P and I) buy a *bond* and give it to the court proving there are funds available to pay any court award.

This is not a unusual legal tool and is used often,maybe not so often at 10mil.

This is just the start...there will be others..lots of carnival Corporation ships around around the world to lay hands on.

All those rules in the passinger contracts......will be set side in the opening legal rounds. As legal manuvers move along the coutrs will decide which parts of the contract will be held enforcable and others will be rulling invalid.

This is only the start, with the amount of money at stake.........we have 10 years of this to go.

AKK

Morning Kate...........don't you just love legalezeeeeee.

 

 

that short of it is...

 

1. The owners/underwriters(P and I' date=' protection and indeminty) can post a *Letter of undertaking*, which means the owners/P and I garrenttes to the court that they have set aside the funds to cover any award made in the court trail.

 

2. The Owners/P and I) buy a *bond* and give it to the court proving there are funds available to pay any court award.

 

This is not a unusual legal tool and is used often,maybe not so often at 10mil.

 

 

This is just the start...there will be others..lots of carnival Corporation ships around around the world to lay hands on.

 

 

All those rules in the passinger contracts......will be set side in the opening legal rounds. As legal manuvers move along the coutrs will decide which parts of the contract will be held enforcable and others will be rulling invalid.

 

 

This is only the start, with the amount of money at stake.........we have 10 years of this to go.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

Hi Skipper, It should be interesting. Jurisdiction is always one of the first issues to be sorted. The appeals process will take much longer. No one wants to sue around the world. They only want to sue in the legal gravy train the United States courts potentially offer for tort claims. Most experts in this area of law indicate Italy will be the ultimate forum based on the forum selection clause. The cruise contract is fairly unambiguous in that regard.

The underlying concept of maritime law allowing the "arrest" and "bonding out" of a ship is really very simple. Because ships are a cruise line's main assets and can be moved anywhere in the world and are considered a person (female), they can be "arested" and released upon posting a "bond". The bond creates a fund to pay any final legal judgements from ongoing law suits.

Morning Kate...........don't you just love legalezeeeeee.

 

 

 

 

 

All those rules in the passinger contracts......will be set side in the opening legal rounds. As legal manuvers move along the coutrs will decide which parts of the contract will be held enforcable and others will be rulling invalid.

 

 

 

 

AKK

Skipper, the courts have ALREADY decided the validity of the cruise contract and forum selection clause, as in the Supreme Court, which ruled that these contracts were "prima facie valid and enforceable", which is lawyer-speak to say that they are presumptively valid. The Court's decision in Shute set out the conditions where provisions such contracts could be ruled invalid and IMHO none of those conditions apply to the Concordia accident that I can see.

The Shute decision as well as the subsequent cases which reference it are available on-line to anyone who wants to do a search. Numerous links on this forum over the last few weeks have been made to admiralty law web sites which basically state the same thing as I have mentioned above, which is that the forum selection clause is settled law. It is what it is. There have been a few minor cases in state courts where the circumstances of the plaintiffs were extreme, which have invalidated parts of it, but basically the contracts have been upheld.

That's why, IMHO, this whole seizure business seems to me a little bizarre--apparently this Federal judge didn't get the email.

As before, the standard disclaimer: I am not an attorney, this is not legal advice or opinion, but just discussion of general cruise topics.

From Carnival's John Heald's FB--

A legal motion was filed in a Texas federal court that resulted in a judge issuing an order to hold the Carnival Triumph in port. The litigation in question relates to a lawsuit brought about by a passenger who sailed on the Costa Concordia in Italy this past January. The Costa Concordia is a vessel operated by Costa Cruises. Carnival Cruise Lines and Costa Cruises are both part of a global organization called Carnival Corporation & plc, however, the two cruise lines operate completely independently.

We want to assure you that we are working diligently through the appropriate legal channels to get this matter resolved as soon as possible. We are optimistic the issues regarding the Carnival Triumph will be resolved and the ship will depart on its scheduled voyage later today.

In the meantime, we are proceeding with our normal embarkation process.

BTW--you can also get Heald's recipe for a tasty sounding cake too that he just posted this morning.

In other news....

Competitors are desperately trying to keep up with Costa Cruises' unique "drifting without power" on-board experience. 1,000 people currently sweating just off the Philippines.

Azamara cruise ship sails for Malaysia after fire repairs

One of th most difficult concepts of Angl-american law is that there are NO final, complete and total answers. All we can do is learn the General Rules (created by: Common Law by Courts, Statutes by Legislatures, and Treaties by Nations) Then we can have to learn the exisiting and ever changing Exceptions to the Rule.

That's why there is continuous litigation in the same areas of law trying to distinguish a new set of facts from a prior scenario to carve out a new exception the the general rule, an exception to the existing exceptions, or blend in some change in the general rule itself.

My first and finest legal mentor had an expression:

"Shakespear wrote 'If that is the law, the law is an ass'. The modern collolary is: 'If you think the law is immutable, you are an ass'."

I've never forgotten his words and have used them to remind opposing counsel and myself that no human is omniscient.

John

In other news....

 

Competitors are desperately trying to keep up with Costa Cruises' unique "drifting without power" on-board experience. 1,000 people currently sweating just off the Philippines.

 

Azamara cruise ship sails for Malaysia after fire repairs

The CEO of Royal Caribbean is hopefully checking his tweets so he can arrive on scene immediately in business casual wear, swaddle at least two of the infants, and be photographed looking concerned. He can then arrange for all the passengers to be airlifted home at which time they will be immediately paid a smalll fortune for their damages. Tsk Tsk. And an engine fire in an up-market brand too. Who knew.

The CEO of Royal Caribbean is hopefully checking his tweets so he can arrive on scene immediately in business casual wear, swaddle at least two of the infants, and be photographed looking concerned. He can then arrange for all the passengers to be airlifted home at which time they will be immediately paid a smalll fortune for their damages.

Well said. RCCL wouldn't have acted any differently had Concordia been one of their ships.

Just as an aside, a documentary about Titantic was broadcast last night. One of the facts to come out was that all the crew were sacked once the ship sank. White Star left the surviving crew to their own devices when they set foot in the US.

The CEO of Royal Caribbean is hopefully checking his tweets so he can arrive on scene immediately in business casual wear, swaddle at least two of the infants, and be photographed looking concerned. He can then arrange for all the passengers to be airlifted home at which time they will be immediately paid a smalll fortune for their damages. Tsk Tsk. And an engine fire in an up-market brand too. Who knew.

Actually...

*The company's president and CEO Larry Pimentel was planning to fly to Sandakan to meet passengers personally.*

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=33139902&postcount=54

Skipper, the courts have ALREADY decided the validity of the cruise contract and forum selection clause, as in the Supreme Court, which ruled that these contracts were "prima facie valid and enforceable", which is lawyer-speak to say that they are presumptively valid. The Court's decision in Shute set out the conditions where provisions such contracts could be ruled invalid and IMHO none of those conditions apply to the Concordia accident that I can see.

 

The Shute decision as well as the subsequent cases which reference it are available on-line to anyone who wants to do a search. Numerous links on this forum over the last few weeks have been made to admiralty law web sites which basically state the same thing as I have mentioned above, which is that the forum selection clause is settled law. It is what it is. There have been a few minor cases in state courts where the circumstances of the plaintiffs were extreme, which have invalidated parts of it, but basically the contracts have been upheld.

 

That's why, IMHO, this whole seizure business seems to me a little bizarre--apparently this Federal judge didn't get the email.

 

As before, the standard disclaimer: I am not an attorney, this is not legal advice or opinion, but just discussion of general cruise topics.

You do have very valid points, but you must also admit that the attornies will keep forcing suits and legal points and dragging things though one court, then the next. Each siut can bring up new issues that may not have been addressed by the earlier rulings......that is what I meant by 10 years more of these legal fights.

As far as arresting ships......that can be done and is a legal tool, until the upper courts reject it!. I actually had a U.S. Marshall walk on to a ship I was handling and arrested the bunker/fuel oil!

The vessels are where the deep pockets are.

AKK

The CEO of Royal Caribbean is hopefully checking his tweets so he can arrive on scene immediately in business casual wear, swaddle at least two of the infants, and be photographed looking concerned. He can then arrange for all the passengers to be airlifted home at which time they will be immediately paid a smalll fortune for their damages. Tsk Tsk. And an engine fire in an up-market brand too. Who knew.

Sorry Kate, but the CEO is on his way there already.......as well he should!.

Now whether he is doing this becuse he knew of the poor and improper way ma and carnival handled the Condordia mess and the public backlash is another matter that we will never know. I Like to think the CEO and boardroom of Amzmara Club Cruises are better leaders and business excutives and better human beings,but who knows!

AKK

AKK

You do have very valid points' date=' but you must also admit that the attornies will keep forcing suits and legal points and dragging things though one court, then the next. Each siut can bring up new issues that may not have been addressed by the earlier rulings......that is what I meant by 10 years more of these legal fights.

 

As far as arresting ships......that can be done and is a legal tool, until the upper courts reject it!. I actually had a U.S. Marshall walk on to a ship I was handling and arrested the bunker/fuel oil!

 

The vessels are where the deep pockets are.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

Thanks, Skipper. My post my have given the impression that I agree with the court decisions, statutes, etc. however I neither agree nor disagree with them (at least not on CC). Nor did I want to imply that the Supreme Court's decisions are carved in stone (though I sometimes think they think they are). I'm just reporting what I have read, not attempting to provide any independent analysis or opinion.

 

My point was just that the legal standards are established by the Supreme Court and statutes and from what I read and hear from legal experts in admiralty, the standard now is that these contract provisions are valid. As you correctly state, they may be eroded, modified or invalidated as time goes by.

 

I also agree that these maritime in rem proceedings look strange to outsiders, at least they seem strange to me.

 

Again, not legal advice.

Sorry Kate' date=' but the CEO is on his way there already.......as well he should!.

 

Now whether he is doing this becuse he knew of the poor and improper way ma and carnival handled the Condordia mess and the public backlash is another matter that we will never know. I Like to think the CEO and boardroom of Amzmara Club Cruises are better leaders and business excutives and better human beings,but who knows!

 

 

AKK

 

AKK[/quote']

 

Costa is to Carnival what Azamara is to Royal Caribbean. No? Aha. So is the CEO of Royal Caribbean on his way to the situation? I hadn't read that yet. Haven't heard about his travel plans yet. Maybe he is relying on the management of the subsidiary corporation to handle the aftermath of all those ruined vacations, the fear and crew injuries. Do you think Royal Caribbean will rebrand? This has been a bad year for them. That federal judge finding Royal Caribbean just a few months ago grossly negligent for the crew deaths from the gas leak on the Monarch was very very bad. What if they have another mishap. Will the injured Triumph crew file suit? Hmm. The funny thing is that this ended up on this forum as another dig at Costa with not a peep about its parent company. So whattup with RC these days Skipper?

Costa is to Carnival what Azamara is to Royal Caribbean. No? Aha. So is the CEO of Royal Caribbean on his way to the situation? I hadn't read that yet. Haven't heard about his travel plans yet. Maybe he is relying on the management of the subsidiary corporation to handle the aftermath of all those ruined vacations, the fear and crew injuries. Do you think Royal Caribbean will rebrand? This has been a bad year for them. That federal judge finding Royal Caribbean just a few months ago grossly negligent for the crew deaths from the gas leak on the Monarch was very very bad. What if they have another mishap. Will the injured Triumph crew file suit? Hmm. The funny thing is that this ended up on this forum as another dig at Costa with not a peep about its parent company. So whattup with RC these days Skipper?

Did the president of Costa ever meet with any of the Concordia or Allegra passengers? Did the president meet them at the dock directly after the incident? Let me help you with the answer - it is "No". Despite saying that Costa CEO Pier Luigi Foschi would meet with survivors on a Sunday after the Concordia shipwreck, survivors stated he was a no show.

Did the president of Costa ever meet with any of the Concordia or Allegra passengers? Did the president meet them at the dock directly after the incident? Let me help you with the answer - it is "No". Despite saying that Costa CEO Pier Luigi Foschi would meet with survivors on a Sunday after the Concordia shipwreck, survivors stated he was a no show.

Maybe Costa CEO, Pier Luigi Foschi, did a no show at his promised meeting with the Concordia survivors when he discovered his wing man, Silvio Berlusconi, couldn't make it and survivor Domnica wouldn't be there..........:p

John

Did the president of Costa ever meet with any of the Concordia or Allegra passengers? Did the president meet them at the dock directly after the incident? Let me help you with the answer - it is "No". Despite saying that Costa CEO Pier Luigi Foschi would meet with survivors on a Sunday after the Concordia shipwreck, survivors stated he was a no show.

It's just very amusing to see all the indignation about Costa/Carnival in view of other lines' issues. The reason why you don't see Royal Caribbean taking shots at Costa or Carnival with respect to, for example, the Allegra, is because people in the industry understand that captains can be total failures and engine fires can happen. The Concordia taught them all to get the publicity gameplan in order early. I didn't see any RC CEO make a statement yet about the loss of lives on the Monarch. Quite sad really. e

Costa is to Carnival what Azamara is to Royal Caribbean. No? Aha. So is the CEO of Royal Caribbean on his way to the situation? I hadn't read that yet. Haven't heard about his travel plans yet. Maybe he is relying on the management of the subsidiary corporation to handle the aftermath of all those ruined vacations, the fear and crew injuries. Do you think Royal Caribbean will rebrand? This has been a bad year for them. That federal judge finding Royal Caribbean just a few months ago grossly negligent for the crew deaths from the gas leak on the Monarch was very very bad. What if they have another mishap. Will the injured Triumph crew file suit? Hmm. The funny thing is that this ended up on this forum as another dig at Costa with not a peep about its parent company. So whattup with RC these days Skipper?

I don't think Costa will rename and I believe they will survive, but will lose some ships and get lean and mean and come backstronger for it!

If you read on Azamere blog,its amazing the difference between Costa/ Carinvial, they lied and gave out little true and honest info vs in the way Azmere is giving out good, honest info and the way their cruisers are reacting so positively!

I am wondering about the whole industry........I think so many things are catching up to them..........think Carnivail.........problems.......Queen Mary !!.fire in the same way/plant as the Carnivial splendor, except the Mary crew handled it much better,.......the Carnivail Splender fire and the messed up tow to San Dieago.......yes it saved carnivial some money towing, yet kept the mess in to media a lot longer. The USCG report on the Splender was not good.......bad maintince...........upkeep,operational issues and design issues.

Add the Condordiaand the alliance, the RCL negitive ruling and now the Quest...Gee I wonder if the Steamboat in the Magic Kingdom will sink next!.(jkg)..I think there will be alot of review of crewing,operational orders, maintence and designs........industry wide.

AKK

Vanity Fair has an article on Concordia in this months issue.

At the end of the article in the following link there is an excerpt link worth reading.

http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/05/11040687-costa-concordia-captains-blunders-detailed-in-vanity-fair

Vanity Fair has an article on Concordia in this months issue.

At the end of the article in the following link there is an excerpt link worth reading.

 

http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/05/11040687-costa-concordia-captains-blunders-detailed-in-vanity-fair

Micki

Thanks for posting the article. Nice recap of the facts.

John

Vanity Fair has an article on Concordia in this months issue.

At the end of the article in the following link there is an excerpt link worth reading.

http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/05/11040687-costa-concordia-captains-blunders-detailed-in-vanity-fair

I am so very thankful that my DH and I did not experience any of this horror when we got off the Concordia! We were among the first lifeboats to reach Giglio and safety! We stood at the muster station for almost an hour which seemed like much longer but when the abandon ship was called, we were already on our way to shore! My DH sensed a serious problem from the very beginning of the whole mess and made the decision that the situation was bad and we needed to get off the ship! I am grateful for my level headed and clear thinking husband! I might have been lead to believe what the overhead messages were falsely telling us! Hubbie knew better than to listen..... he thinks for himself, always!

One thing that has made this experience hard to get over was the fact that we were left to fend for ourselves when we should have been in a situation with someone taking charge and telling us the truth. No one was in charge and no one told us what was really happening.

Later when we were safely back in Rome waiting to make future plans, no one from Costa apologized to us or acknowledged that this should not have happened and what could they do for us to make it better for us! All the Costa officials were instructed to do was to get us on a flight home! If only these people had said they were sorry from the first time they met us! The Costa employees that we were dealing with in the Rome Hilton were sales agents from various locations in Italy. I realize that they were not prepared to deal with anything like this either. Since this I would hope that they are asking passengers what they could have done or should have done to make the situation better

Vanity Fair has an article on Concordia in this months issue.

At the end of the article in the following link there is an excerpt link worth reading.

 

http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...in-vanity-fair

The article says:

The captain, who was casually talking on the phone when the ship approached the rocks, wrongly ordered the ship to turn to starboard, rather than port, to avoid the mostly submerged rock when he finally did see it. That caused the ship’s stern to swing around and slam into it, ripping open a 230-foot-long gash below the waterline.

The ship was turned too late, that we know. If the ship had been turned to port, the stern would not have hit the submerged rock, it's true - and that's because the ship would then have hit the island almost head-on at 15 knots. Which, I would argue, would be rather worse.

VP