United Marine Mut. Indem. Ass'n v. Marshall, C-78-2884 SC.

Decision Date09 January 1981
Docket NumberNo. C-78-2884 SC.,C-78-2884 SC.
Citation510 F. Supp. 34
PartiesUNITED MARINE MUTUAL INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. F. Ray MARSHALL, Secretary of Labor et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California

Lester H. Clark, Graham & James, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff.

G. William Hunter, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants.

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CONTI, District Judge.

Plaintiff in this action is the United Marine Mutual Indemnity Association ("UMMIA"), which appears to be a "protection and indemnity association" authorized to write maritime insurance on a mutual assessment plan by Bermuda law. Defendants include the Secretary of Labor and other Department of Labor personnel. The Department of Labor is authorized to administer the provisions of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ("LHWCA"), 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., and it is the manner of the Department's administration of that Act that gives rise to the instant dispute.

The LHWCA makes maritime industry employers liable for compensation to injured employees and their dependants, 33 U.S.C. §§ 904-09, and it requires the employers to secure payment of such compensation either by authorized insurance coverage or by approved self-insurance. 33 U.S.C. § 932. Plaintiff maintains that a third alternative exists under the provisions of § 932, whereby an employer may secure payment by participating in a protection and indemnity association without obtaining any further authorization or approval from the Department of Labor. The Department recognizes that such associations may satisfactorily secure payment under the Act, but maintains that § 932 requires that the associations be authorized by the Department to act as insurance carriers.

The UMMIA has not received authorization to provide maritime employee compensation coverage from the Department of Labor. The Department notified its members that they would be treated as self-insurers. Plaintiff initiated this suit to enjoin the issuance of such letters, contending that it is authorized to provide the coverage in question by virtue of its status as a protection and indemnity association. This matter is now before the court on defendants' motion for summary judgment. The merits of the motion will be addressed, pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as there does not appear to be any outstanding issue of material fact.

The sole question before the court is the proper construction and meaning of 33 U.S.C. § 932, as it relates to protection and indemnity associations. The statute provides in pertinent part:

"(a) Every employer shall secure the payment of compensation under this chapter —
(1) By insuring and keeping insured the payment of such compensation with any stock company or mutual company or association, or with any other person or fund, while such person or fund is authorized (A) under the laws of the United States or of any State, to insure workmen's compensation, and (B) by the Secretary, to insure payment of compensation under this chapter; or
(2) By furnishing satisfactory proof to the Secretary of his financial ability to pay such compensation and receiving an authorization from the Secretary to pay such compensation directly....
(b) In granting authorization to any carrier to insure payment of compensation under this chapter the Secretary may take into consideration the recommendation of any State authority having supervision over carriers or over workmen's compensation, and may authorize any carrier to insure the payment of compensation under this chapter in a limited territory. Any marine protection and indemnity mutual insurance corporation or association, authorized to write insurance against liability for loss or damage from personal injury and death, and for other losses and damages, incidental to or in respect of the ownership, operation, or chartering of vessels on a mutual assessment plan, shall be deemed a qualified carrier to insure compensation under this chapter...." (Emphasis added)

Plaintiff maintains that, since it is deemed a qualified carrier to insure compensation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Africa v. Anderson, Civ. A. No. 80-3642.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • March 17, 1981
    ... ... Civ. A. No. 80-3642 ... United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania ... 1978).2 "Arguably," as Judge Prentice Marshall observed in Caruth v. Geddes, supra, the ... ...
  • United Marine Mut. Indem. Ass'n v. Donovan, 81-4033
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 15, 1983
    ...1 which provides alternate ways for an employer to insure for liabilities under the Act. United Marine contended in the district court, 510 F.Supp. 34, as it does here, that the Secretary's permission is not required before a marine protection and indemnity insurance association becomes suc......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT