Ryan Marine Serv. Inc v. Hudson Drydocks Inc
| Decision Date | 21 January 2011 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-2245 (LEAD),CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-0167 (MEMBER) |
| Parties | RYAN MARINE SERVICES, INC., ET AL v. HUDSON DRYDOCKS, INC. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Pending before the Court is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. 126] filed by defendant Hudson Drydocks, Inc. ("Hudson"). In its motion, Hudson moves for partial summary judgment "holding that Hudson is not liable, as a matter of law, unto plaintiffs for any alleged loss of use damages stemming from the repair/refurbishment work performed by Hudson in 2005 and 2006 on the plaintiff's vessel, the [M/V MR. SONNY], 1 nor as a result of the fire which occurred on January 31, 2006 on the said vessel, regardless of any findings of fault on the part of Hudson, which is denied." Defendant and third-party plaintiff, Great American Insurance Company of New York ("Great American"), Hudson's insurer, has filed a Motion for Leave to File a Memorandum [Doc. 128] in support of Hudson's motion for partial summary judgment, which is hereby GRANTED, and third-party defendants J&T Contractors, Inc. and Alea London Ltd. have filed motions asserting the same arguments and seeking the same relief as Hudson [Docs. 137 & 140]. Plaintiffs, Columbia Star, Inc, the owner of the vessel, and Ryan Marine Services, Inc., the operator of the vessel, oppose the motions.
As an initial matter, before this Court addresses the particulars of the motions filed, the Court notes the parties have framed the issue for summary judgment as one largely involving which entity-Hudson or Ryan Marine-is responsible for the delays in the certification process associated with the refurbishing of (or repair of, or construction of) the MR. SONNY. Hudson's main argument is that the reason the vessel was not chartered until February 2007 was the delay in obtaining final ABS and Coast Guard certification for the vessel, a process that was delayed in large part by the need for ABS approval of the engineering, electrical, and structural drawings of the new quarters added to the vessel, as well as the need for a new stability letter required by the ABS and Coast Guard due to the addition of the new quarters. Hudson argues it is undisputed the additional quarters were designed by Ryan Marine, and it is undisputed the vessel could not have been certified by the ABS until the ABS approved all of the engineering drawings associated with the additional quarters. Ryan Marine disputes that it caused the delay in chartering the vessel, as will be discussed in more detail below.
After conducting its own research, this Court believes, that perhaps, the parties have incorrectly framed the issue. Although the parties have hinted at the following, without directly addressing it, it appears that in purchasing the MR. SONNY and hiring Hudson to "repair" the vessel, Ryan Marine was attempting to change the purpose/nature of the vessel. It is undisputed Ryan Marine intended to charter the vessel as a four-point dive support vessel, a special purpose vessel. Although not discussed, it appears the vessel had not been used in a such a capacity before being purchased by Ryan Marine. What is clear is that the vessel could not be chartered as a four-point dive support vessel-the capacity in which Ryan Marine intended to charter the vessel -until the "refurbishment" in question, which included the addition of new living quarters, presumably for dive personnel, was completed and certified.2 Because the parties have not briefed the issue, this Court does not know which, if any, work that was being performed by Hudson included any of the foregoing vessel modifications, or whether Hudson merely contracted to "repair" certain aspects of the vessel, and later acted to repair all or part of any damage caused by a subsequent fire. However, the foregoing factual issue is pivotal to the issue of loss of use damages, and furthermore, could be pivotal to the issue of what law applies to the contract between Hudson and Ryan Marine. Indeed, if the contract between the parties is one to repair a vessel, maritime law would presumably apply. If the contract in question was one to construct a vessel -and here, the Court has question as to whether a contract to re-fashion a vessel into a special purpose vessel would be considered a "repair" contract or a "construction" contract-maritime law would presumably not apply. This Court, also, does not know whether Hudson was doing any of the work regarding the possible "refurbishment" if converting the vessel from a vessel of one type to another, or whether the contract between Ryan Marine and Hudson did not encompass the conversion of the vessel, rather, only true repairs, and thus, this Court cannot know whether the actual factual scenario would be seen as a contract to "repair" or to "construct" a vessel, or a hybrid. The foregoing issue has not been addressed by the parties.3
Against this backdrop, the Court will now address the motions. Considering the foregoing lack of clarity, and for the following reasons, the motions for partial summary judgment filed by Hudson, J&T, and Alea are partially DENIED for failure of the moving parties to carry their burdensand partially DENIED because of the existence of factual disputes as genuine, material facts.
The following facts are undisputed by the parties:
1. Plaintiff, Ryan Marine, purchased the subject vessel in late 2005 (then identified as the "MR. SONNY" and later re-named the "CITATION.")
2. The MR. SONNY was built in 1980.
3. Ryan Marine purchased the MR. SONNY in either November of December 2005 for $775,000 and renamed it the Citation. (See Exhibit C, Stan Hermann Depo., at p. 11, 14).
4. At all times, Ryan Marine's intention was to have the Mr. SONNY ABS-class certified as a four-point dive support vessel. (See Exhibit D, Richard Ryan Depo., p. 46, lines 1-8; Also see Exhibit E. Ed Keown Depo., p. 25, lines 23-25; p. 26, lines 1-2; Also see Exhibit F, Dan Duplantis Depo., at p. 27-29).
5. Ryan Marine did not know how much steel was going to have to be replaced to return the vessel to class and operational condition. (See Exhibit C, Stan Hermann Depo., at p. 15, lines 5-10). Plaintiffs dispute the foregoing factual statement to the extent it indicates the vessel was not operational. Plaintiffs argue the vessel was operational at the time they bought it.
6. Ryan Marine delivered the MR. SONNY to Hudson's yard on or around December 27, 2005 for repair and refurbishment.
7. Ryan Marine contracted with Hudson to do steel repair, replacement, and refurbishment of the MR. SONNY with the intention of placing the vessel back into service as an ABS-classed, four-point anchor dive support vessel. (See Exhibit C, Stan Hermann Depo., at p. 13-15).
8. The only writing reflecting the repair contract between Ryan Marine and Hudson was a December 29, 2005 letter agreement that signed by Mr. Richard Ryan, president of Ryan Marine on or about January 9, 2006. (See Exhibit G, Letter Agreement, which was attached as Exhibit 11 to deposition of Lance Devillier at p. 28-29, which pagesare attached as Exhibit K).4
9. That agreement provided that Hudson would repair the vessel on a "Time and Materials" basis. (See Exhibit G, Letter Agreement; Also see Exhibit E, Edward Keown Depo., at p. 17-18).
10. At all relevant times, Ryan Marine intended and in fact did install an additional quarter to the vessel (aft-station) while the vessel was at Hudson's yard. (See Exhibit E, Edward Keown Depo., at p. 29-30) (See Exhibit F, Dan Duplantis Depo. at p. 45-46).
11. The MR. SONNY could not be chartered as a dive support vessel until it was properly classed as such by the ABS, and until it received all of the proper certifications from the USCG and ABS. (See Exhibit F, Dan Duplantis Depo., at p. 61).
12. Ryan Marine invited the ABS and the USCG to inspect the vessel to begin the re-classification process in early January, however, those inspections did not did not begin until January 27, 2006. (See Exhibit A, Sean Carpenter Depo., at p. 28, lines 14-25).
13. Ryan Marine removed the Mr. Sonny from Hudson's yard on September 15, 2006. (See Exhibit E, Edward Keown Depo., at p. 175-176; Also see Exhibit K, Lance Devillier Depo., at p. 56, lines 18-25).
14. Prior to September 15, 2006, all of the steel repair work completed by Hudson on the MN Citation had been completely approved by the ABS during its final drydock inspection of the vessel in August 2006. (See Exhibit A. Sean Carpenter Depo., at p. 58; Also see Exhibit F, Dan Duplantis Depo., at p. 145; Also see Exhibit K, Lance Devillier Depo., at p. 219, lines 1-16).
15. At no time during this time period, 2005-2006, did Ryan Marine have any charter agreement with any person for the MR. SONNY in place. (See Exhibit C, Stan Hermann Depo., at p. 22-23)
16. In February 2007, Ryan Marine chartered out the MR. SONNY to a company named Seaquest. (See Exhibit E. Edward Keown Depo., at p. 101-102).
The parties dispute the following facts:
Hudson contends as of November 2005, the vessel had been "laid up" since March 2003 by a previous owner prior to Ryan's purchase (see Deposition of Sean Carpenter, attached as Exhibit A to Hudson's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, at p. 10, 1. 15-18); when the vessel was put into lay-up, the MR. SONNY was not "operational, " and had lost is Classification Society Certification with ABS as well as other United States Coast Guard certifications (see Deposition of Fred Dischler, attached as Exhibit B to Hudson's motion, at p. 13, 11. 14-16, 11. 21-22); and the prior owner decided to lay-up or "cold stack" the vessel because the estimated costs of repairing the vessel and replacing the steel necessary to pass the ABS re-certification survey would be approximately $3,000, 000.00. (see Exhibit B, p. 12, 1. 16-p. 13, 1. 16). In support of...
To continue reading
Request your trial