Carnival sues BAE Systems

[songbird1329]

OK, I haven't read the pleadings, only the blurb the OP linked to.

 

But here's the deal.

 

Carnival filed a declaratory judgment action. It is seeking to foist all liability for this accident onto BAE and/or the Army Corps of Engineers. It named the injured employee and the deceased employee's representative as parties only because they have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the litigation. any defenses Carnival would have vis a vis the employee claims would be adjudicated in the suit filed by the employees, not in the DJ action. Carnival wants compensation for its own damages and absolution for claims which may be filed against Carnival.

 

As for the employee claims against Carnival --

 

Employees who are injured or killed while on the job are generally barred from suing their employer, because Worker's Comp is their exclusive remedy. So the employee or survivors will sue third parties, alleging negligence that resulted in the employees' injury/death. In most jurisdictions, the third party can then bring the employer into the litigation via a claim for indemnity and/or contribution. So the deceased employees' families are alleging Carnival was negligent, because it was Carnival's ship that escaped from its moorings.

So we're clear that Carnival is not picking on widows and orphans.

 

My guess is that the suits will be consolidated, at least for pretrial proceedings, since they share common facts and issues.

 

So the issues that will be framed for trial are the negligence of Carnival, BAE and the Army Corps of Engineers, allocation of fault among those parties whose negligence caused or contributed to the accident (who gets to pay which percentage of the damages) and what are the actual damages suffered by Carnival and the injured employees.

 

Should be interesting.

[H82seaUgo]

i guess that act of God thing doesn't come into play here.

[songbird1329]

i guess that act of God thing doesn't come into play here.

 

 

Yes and no.

 

Obviously no one controls the weather. But we control the safety devices used to withstand the weather. If the storm was so severe that nothing we built could withstand it, no one would be responsible for another party's damages arising out of the storm. But if someone's negligence caused the safety devices to fail, they'd be liable for the resulting damages.

[songbird1329]

and of course BAE denies that the suit has merit.

 

http://www.al.com/business/index.ssf/2013/06/bae_systems_contends_carnivals.html

[retiredgram]

Please, please, please tell us how you came up with these words. I'd really love to hear your logic.

Off topic sorry: but just heard those words on a rerun of My Best Friends Wedding with Julia Roberts.

[songbird1329]

Did you have to pay the lawyer bill or did they ?

 

 

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app

 

 

 

Neither.

 

In this country each party pays his/her own legal fees unless contract or statute provides otherwise. In an auto accident, there is no "otherwise" and each party is responsible for his or her own legal fees.

 

That's why we all buy auto insurance, your insurer is obligated to indemnify us with respect to auto accidents, and that includes paying your legal fees should someone sue you as a result of an accident involving the insured vehicle.

[smeyer418]

OK, I haven't read the pleadings, only the blurb the OP linked to.

 

But here's the deal.

 

Carnival filed a declaratory judgment action. It is seeking to foist all liability for this accident onto BAE and/or the Army Corps of Engineers. It named the injured employee and the deceased employee's representative as parties only because they have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the litigation. any defenses Carnival would have vis a vis the employee claims would be adjudicated in the suit filed by the employees, not in the DJ action. Carnival wants compensation for its own damages and absolution for claims which may be filed against Carnival.

 

As for the employee claims against Carnival --

 

Employees who are injured or killed while on the job are generally barred from suing their employer, because Worker's Comp is their exclusive remedy. So the employee or survivors will sue third parties, alleging negligence that resulted in the employees' injury/death. In most jurisdictions, the third party can then bring the employer into the litigation via a claim for indemnity and/or contribution. So the deceased employees' families are alleging Carnival was negligent, because it was Carnival's ship that escaped from its moorings.

So we're clear that Carnival is not picking on widows and orphans.

 

My guess is that the suits will be consolidated, at least for pretrial proceedings, since they share common facts and issues.

 

So the issues that will be framed for trial are the negligence of Carnival, BAE and the Army Corps of Engineers, allocation of fault among those parties whose negligence caused or contributed to the accident (who gets to pay which percentage of the damages) and what are the actual damages suffered by Carnival and the injured employees.

 

Should be interesting.

 

 

there are also a number of tactical reasons to bring this lawsuit now.

First it may have been filed by Carnival's insurer in Carnival's name. By bringing it now you avoid all the heart breaking story of the widow before the jury so that the issue is purely the legal one of who is liable to her.

 

Bollards should not break lose in a non hurricane. Its a design issue. It may have been that the wind hit it in a certain unexpected direction but in any case you would expect the bollards would hold. Once one or two broke off its likely that the others were not designed to work independently and hold the ship, especially when the wind hit from the rear not the side facing the dock. The fact that they didn't hold speak for themselves. It may have been that the ropes were secured incorrectly. But generally the Stevedores are hired by the dock and they would be liable for that too...

[songbird1329]

there are also a number of tactical reasons to bring this lawsuit now.

First it may have been filed by Carnival's insurer in Carnival's name. By bringing it now you avoid all the heart breaking story of the widow before the jury so that the issue is purely the legal one of who is liable to her.

 

No, I don't think so.

 

I haven't read the pleadings, nor do I have a crystal ball, but after 25+ years as an insurance attorney I think I've got a good "feel' for how these cases will proceed. This is my educated guess.

 

I don't know whether and to what extent Carnival has property damage insurance (in which case its insurer would have subrogation rights), but the suit is primarily brought to recover Carnival's damages. Unless Carnival is self-insured, its defense is handled by its liability insurer, who may or may not be the same insurance company as provides insurance to Carnival for its property damage claims. The insurers will coordinate, of course, but Carnival cannot avoid the poor widow presenting her case to the jury.

 

 

The case brought by Carnival seeks recovery of damages to Carnival's property. There will be pretrial discovery, and perhaps a mediation session in which some or all of the claims will be resolved. But if the matter goes to trial, a jury is going to be asked to determine which of the parties, if any, was negligent, and a jury will be asked to apportion liability among the negligent parties. This jury will hear from all interested parties, including the widow and the injured employee. Remember that earlier I said the deceased employee and the injured employee cannot bring suit against their employer because Worker's Comp is their sole remedy against the employer? Since they are parties to the suit filed by Carnival, they can participate in all aspects of the claim, including making presentations to the jury, and they're going to be pointing the finger at everyone except their employer.

 

Now, about the state court actions filed by the injured employee and the widow. If it is at all legally possible, one or more of the defendants is likely to seek "removal", which means you ask the state court to transfer the case to the federal court. If removal is allowed, most likely the cases get consolidated. So the poor widow and the injured employee get to present their claim for damages to a jury in federal court as part of the same proceedings as the suit by Carnival.

 

If the cases remain in state court, they are likely to be stayed pending the outcome of the federal action, since the federal action will determine liability. So these injured parties come into state court already knowing who is liable to them, because it was decided in a prior case to which they were parties, and all they have to do in state court is prove their damages to a jury.

 

That's assuming the parties never come to an agreement on apportioning liability during pretrial mediation. And it's always possible that one or more of the defendants will seek to settle out with the widow and the injured employee.

[chengkp75]

No, I don't think so.

 

I haven't read the pleadings, nor do I have a crystal ball, but after 25+ years as an insurance attorney I think I've got a good "feel' for how these cases will proceed. This is my educated guess.

 

I don't know whether and to what extent Carnival has property damage insurance (in which case its insurer would have subrogation rights), but the suit is primarily brought to recover Carnival's damages. Unless Carnival is self-insured, its defense is handled by its liability insurer, who may or may not be the same insurance company as provides insurance to Carnival for its property damage claims. The insurers will coordinate, of course, but Carnival cannot avoid the poor widow presenting her case to the jury.

 

 

The case brought by Carnival seeks recovery of damages to Carnival's property. There will be pretrial discovery, and perhaps a mediation session in which some or all of the claims will be resolved. But if the matter goes to trial, a jury is going to be asked to determine which of the parties, if any, was negligent, and a jury will be asked to apportion liability among the negligent parties. This jury will hear from all interested parties, including the widow and the injured employee. Remember that earlier I said the deceased employee and the injured employee cannot bring suit against their employer because Worker's Comp is their sole remedy against the employer? Since they are parties to the suit filed by Carnival, they can participate in all aspects of the claim, including making presentations to the jury, and they're going to be pointing the finger at everyone except their employer.

 

Now, about the state court actions filed by the injured employee and the widow. If it is at all legally possible, one or more of the defendants is likely to seek "removal", which means you ask the state court to transfer the case to the federal court. If removal is allowed, most likely the cases get consolidated. So the poor widow and the injured employee get to present their claim for damages to a jury in federal court as part of the same proceedings as the suit by Carnival.

 

If the cases remain in state court, they are likely to be stayed pending the outcome of the federal action, since the federal action will determine liability. So these injured parties come into state court already knowing who is liable to them, because it was decided in a prior case to which they were parties, and all they have to do in state court is prove their damages to a jury.

 

That's assuming the parties never come to an agreement on apportioning liability during pretrial mediation. And it's always possible that one or more of the defendants will seek to settle out with the widow and the injured employee.

 

Shipping companies will normally have hull insurance on the ship, limited to the total value of the ship, and cargo insurance, for claims against cargo damage and loss (passenger injuries and death, if you will). Third party claims (BAE, Signal, Army Corps of Eng, the BAE employee and the widow) is normally covered by P&I insurance, which is a mutual insurance. So the more Carnival has to pay out for a claim like this, the more they will have to pay in premiums next year. It is sort of a self-insurance, but the risk is spread over the number of shipping companies in the P&I club.

[EZ4]

I HATE to see this happening. Carnival is so beloved in Mobile. :p

[songbird1329]

Shipping companies will normally have hull insurance on the ship, limited to the total value of the ship, and cargo insurance, for claims against cargo damage and loss (passenger injuries and death, if you will). Third party claims (BAE, Signal, Army Corps of Eng, the BAE employee and the widow) is normally covered by P&I insurance, which is a mutual insurance. So the more Carnival has to pay out for a claim like this, the more they will have to pay in premiums next year. It is sort of a self-insurance, but the risk is spread over the number of shipping companies in the P&I club.

 

Interesting. Of course, most large corpirations soread the risk among various insurers.

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

[songbird1329]

I HATE to see this happening. Carnival is so beloved in Mobile. :p

 

Soutgern District if Alabama encompasses 8 or 9 counties. Very few of the potential jurors will be from Mobile, and even fewer of them will have a real interest in Carnival's issues with the port in Mobike.

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

[Pkbryant]

I HATE to see this happening. Carnival is so beloved in Mobile. :p

 

I disagree, we do not dislike Carnival. The citizens of Mobile would love for Carnival to return to Mobile. We have issues with our Mayor and blame him for Carnival leaving, not Carnival.

 

The day this incident happened, one of the very first things I said was why are they (media) blaming Carnival, BAE is the one who had her secured wouldn't they be responsible. As a Mobile citizen I in no way blame Carnival nor do I have any ill feelings towards them.

 

Carnival, please come back to Mobile! :)

[EZ4]

I disagree, we do not dislike Carnival. The citizens of Mobile would love for Carnival to return to Mobile. We have issues with our Mayor and blame him for Carnival leaving, not Carnival.

 

The day this incident happened, one of the very first things I said was why are they (media) blaming Carnival, BAE is the one who had her secured wouldn't they be responsible. As a Mobile citizen I in no way blame Carnival nor do I have any ill feelings towards them.

 

Carnival, please come back to Mobile! :)

 

They better hurry up before ALDOT builds their new I-10 bridge across the river and locks the cruise terminal in. Personally, I'd rather see the bridge built, than have a cruise ship in town. The bottle neck on I-10 in the tunnels everyday is unadulterated insanity. They should have built the cruise terminal at the closed Navy homeport site. It's got an insanely cool double decker pier and hundreds of acres of parking in a totally fenced and secure site.

[EZ4]

Lawsuit moved to Federal Court.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52348382/ns/local_news-mobile_al/#.Uc8IATusiSo

[songbird1329]

Lawsuit moved to Federal Court.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52348382/ns/local_news-mobile_al/#.Uc8IATusiSo

 

As I predicted.

 

I wonder if the injured employee and the widow will seek remand to state court.

 

It would probably be denied. I'm sure the cases are going to be consolidated, at minimum for purposes of pretrial discovery.

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2