All or Nothing In Complex Web: Court Refuses to Stay Limitation Action Absent Consent of All Claimants
In re: Complaint of BISSO TOWBOAT TOWBOAT CO., INC., 2023 WL 2810199, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60590 * (E.D. La. April 5, 2023; Africk, J.)
Judge Lance Africk denied the seaman’s Motion to Stay the consolidated limitation of liability actions filed by E.N. Bisso & Son, Inc. (“Bisso & Son”), owner of the M/V J.A. BISSO II and Bisso Towboat (“Bisso Towboat”), owner of the M/V BARON. The seaman filed suit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans for damages due to exposure to asbestos while employed by Bisso & Son and Bisso Towboat for a period of 15 years.[1]
After suit was filed in state court, Bisso Towboat filed a limitation complaint in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Bisso & Son answered the limitation complaint, filed a claim in the limitation proceeding seeking contribution for any damages awarded to the seaman.[2] Having filed its claim in the Bisso Towboat limitation action, Bisso & Son filed its own limitation complaint in which Bisso Towboat answered and filed a claim for contribution from Bisso & Son.[3] The seaman also answered Bisso Towboat’s limitation complaint and answered Bisso & Son’s limitation complaint and filed a claim in that limitation proceeding seeking damages under the Jones Act and alleging unseaworthiness.[4]
The seaman subsequently filed a Motion to Stay the Limitation proceedings and submitted a stipulation that among other things, “in no event will Claimant seek to enforce said excess judgment or recovery insofar as same may expose the Limitation Petitioners to liability in excess of the limitation funds pending the adjudication of Limitation of Liability in this federal court.”[5] Both Bisso & Son and Bisso Towboat opposed the motion.
Judge Africk denied the motion primarily because both Bisso & Son and Bisso Towboat filed claims for contribution against each other in the pending limitation proceedings.[6] Relying The precedent of Odeco Oil & Gas Co., Drilling Div. v. Bonnette[7] and In re Devall Towing & Boat Serv. of Hackberry, L.L.C.[8] establish that all claimants in a limitation proceeding must agree to the proffered stipulations.[9] As neither Bisso Towboat nor Bisso & Son have proffered any stipulations nor joined in the plaintiff’s stipulations,[10] the Motion to Stay was denied.
