Laches – Excusable Delay Does Not Require Prejudice InquiryStevedore Owes Vessel Duty of Reasonable Care Contribution Claim of Vessel Viable

Laches – Excusable Delay Does Not Require Prejudice InquiryStevedore Owes Vessel Duty of Reasonable Care Contribution Claim of Vessel Viable

By: Cami Fergus

Conti 11 . Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. v. New Orleans Terminal, LLC, No. 15-3704, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12738; 2016 WL 409610 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 2016)In June 2012, NOT, a Louisiana LLC that provided stevedoring services for the Plaintiffs, received, handled, and loaded chemical cargo onto the M.S. MSC FLAMINA (“the Vessel”). On July 14, 2012, there was an explosion and fire abroad the Vessel that killed three crewmembers and injured several more. In addition, the Vessel was damaged and cargo containers were lost.   During the course of discovery in the Limitation of Liability claim, the plaintiffs alleged it first became aware that NOT might be responsible.Plaintiffs then filed suit against NOT within one year of its discovery of the potential culpability of NOT.NOT subsequently filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and 12(f) Motion to Strike. In the motion, NOT initially argued that all of Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed due to laches.  Due to the one-year statute of limitations of torts (under Louisiana law of prescription) and the fact that time period has lapsed since the accident, NOT argued the claim expired. However, Plaintiffs responded that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until they obtained knowledge of NOT’s potential negligence, when the documents were discovered in 2014. The court agreed with the Plaintiffs that the statute of limitations had not expired.NOT also asserted that the claim should be dismissed on the basis of laches which is presumed in this case as the claim was filed beyond the 1-year limitation. Judge Barbier, however, agreed with the plaintiffs and held that the late discovery of the possible fault of NOT justified the late filing. Finding that the delay was excusable, the judge found it unnecessary to consider whether there was any prejudice to NOT in the delay.Next addressing the claim of general negligence, the court agreed that NOT owed certain duties to Plaintiffs, and recognized certain cases where stevedores owed a duty to inform a vessel owner of a condition that could damage the vessel.NOT claims it did owe an implied warranty of workmanlike performance (“WWLP”) as terminal operators, which do not owe this duty outside of a contractual relationship. Plaintiffs allege NOT owed and breached the WWLP, stating the implied warranty extends to vessel and cargo damage.  Here the plaintiffs were seeking Ryan indemnity from the stevedore. In Bosner, S.A. DE C.V. v. Tug L.A. Barrios, 796 F.2d 776 (5th Cir. 1986), the Fifth Circuit abolished any such claim.  Bound by that precedent, the court granted the Motion to Dismiss the claim for breach of the WWLP.Finally, addressing the motion to dismiss the claim for contribution,  the court held that while Plaintiffs cannot get Ryan indemnity for breach of the WWLP, they have established that NOT owed a duty to exercise reasonable care as a stevedore, and therefore a dismissal under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) is unwarranted.