Conquering the Himalayas in Cruise Vessel Ticket Contracts

Davis v. Valsamis, Inc.,16- 17081, 2018 WL 4182116, (11th Cir. Aug. 30, 2018)

By: Gregory Burts

In this per curiam decision, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment denying the Plaintiff’s maritime tort claims of negligence and personal injury resulting from a fire in a cruise ship’s engine room. At issue in this case was whether an independent contractor was acting within the scope of the cruise line’s Himalaya clause in its ticket contract, and whether the right to receive notice of plaintiff’s injuries within 185 days inures to the benefit of only the cruise line, or to the independent contractor as well.The specific clause in dispute stated that “[a]ll rights, exemptions from liability, defenses and immunities of Carnival under this contract shall also inure to the benefit of Carnival’s ... suppliers, shipbuilders and manufacturers of component parts and independent contractors.”[1]  Plaintiffs argued that this clause was ambiguous because it did not define the term ”independent contractor.“ The court found this argument unpersuasive, stating that the contract sufficiently defined both independent contractors and the rights and benefits extended to them.The Plaintiffs next argued that only the cruise line and not the independent contractor needed to be notified of personal injury claims as provided in Clause 12(a) of the ticket contract. Interpreting the contract, the court found the clause at issue “clearly expresses the intent to bar suit unless notice of a claim is timely provided by the offending party.”[2] Thus, the court found that the clause requires notice to be given to independent contractors as well because of the provisions in the Himalaya clause.The Plaintiff’s final argument rested on the claim that under 42 U.S.C. § 30508(c), the Defendant bears the burden of proving prejudice from insufficient notice of the tort claim for the disputed clause of the contract to bar their claims. The court held that claim to be true, but Defendant’s offered evidence showing that they had no knowledge of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, rebutting Plaintiff’s argument. Thus, the court found that § 30508(c) was not controlling because Defendant was prejudiced by Plaintiff’s lack of notice.Ultimately, this case was decided based on a strict interpretation of a Himalaya clause in a ticket contract between passengers and a commercial pleasure vessel. Plaintiff’s failed to comply with the specific provisions of that ticket contract, and their claims were barred due to their failure to comply. [1] Davis v. Valsamis, Inc., 16-17081, 2018 WL 4182116, at *4 (11th Cir. Aug. 30, 2018).[2] Id. at 6.