In the last issue of the EXPERT, we discussed the slip opinion in the Lasseigne & Sons, Inc. v. Bacon et al, No. 84-690-PA, slip op. (D. Or. 1986) which held that an owner's P&I insurance proceeds must be included in the limitation fund in an action to limit liability. That case involved the loss of life in a fishing vessel sinking. We thought it unusual and so did many of our readers. It created quite a stir amongst the members of the Admiralty Bar and the Maritime Law Association.
In a more recent "limitation action" in a maritime case involving nondelivery of cargoes in the sinking of the M/V HANJIN INCHEON, claimant sought to have the court require the ship owner to increase the security deposited in the limitation fund by the amount of the P&I insurance coverage. The order in the Lasseigne case was cited in sole support of their motion.
On 10 December 1987, Judge Barbara J. Rothstein of the Western District of Washington at Seattle denied the motion stating that the instant case was one concerning only the loss of property and that the court in the Lasseigne case derived its holding out of the decisions concerning direct actions brought against the insurer under Louisiana's Direct Action Statute. Since direct action against an insurer is not permitted in Washington, the Lasseigne order and the cases upon which it was based did not support the motion.
See Hanjin Contain Lines, Ltd., No. 84-690-PA slip op. (D. Wa.)
Home ! Search Page ! Master index ! Table of Contents for This Issue