Warner v. The Bear
| Decision Date | 06 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 7106-A.,7106-A. |
| Citation | 130 F. Supp. 549 |
| Parties | J. G. WARNER, Libellant, and Charles G. Warner Co., Intervening Libellant, v. THE Gas Boat BEAR (Official C. G. No. 31-A-405), her engines, tackle, gear and equipment, and Edward T. Sarabia, owner, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
John S. Mansuy, Jr., Juneau, Alaska, for libellant.
John H. Dimond, Juneau, Alaska, for intervening libellant.
Mildred R. Hermann, Juneau, Alaska, for respondents.
This is the second phase of this litigation over liability for repairs to the vessel named. The first dealt with the question whether the claim of the owner against the agents of the insurer was such as might furnish a basis for impleader in admiralty. That question was decided adversely to the owner, D.C., 126 F.Supp. 529. The question now before the court is whether the libellant and intervening libellant are entitled to maritime liens against the vessel. The owner contends that they are not, because the repairs made were not authorized by him or his agent within the purview of 46 U.S.C.A. § 971 et seq., and that it is the agents of the insurer who are liable.
It appears that the damage sustained by the vessel was not within the risks of the policy because of the inclusion of a "winter lay-up" clause, and that this exception was overlooked by the agents at the time they directed the owner to have a survey made of the damage. The libellant acted in a dual capacity * * * as maritime surveyor for the underwriters and as agent for the shipyard. Upon submitting a report of his survey he was informed by the agents that the vessel was covered and directed to make repairs. While it was on the ways undergoing repairs to the hull, the intervening libellant, at the request of the libellant, repaired the damage to the machinery and it was at the intervening libellant's place of business where the final work of re-aligning the propeller shaft to eliminate vibration was done.
When it was subsequently discovered that the risk was not within the policy, the libellants proceeded against the vessel and also the owner, who defends on the ground that what the agents did could not be made the basis of a lien against the vessel. The question presented is whether, because of their reliance upon the representations of the agents as to the existence of insurance, the libellants are now precluded from proceeding against the vessel and her owner. Personal liability of the owner must, of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Catlin (Syndicate 2003) at Lloyd's v. San Juan Towing & Marine Servs., Inc.
...Maritime jurisdiction does not extend, for example, to (1) disputes over procurement of marine insurance, Id., (citing Warner v. The Bear, 130 F.Supp. 549 (D.Alaska 1955)); (2) actions to reform a policy of marine insurance, Inversiones Calmer, 681 F.Supp. at 102 (citing Paul Marsh, Inc. v.......
-
Catlin (Syndicate 2003) at Lloyd's v. San Juan Towing & Marine Servs., Inc.
...jurisdiction does not extend, for example, to (1) disputes over procurement of marine insurance, Id., (citing Warner v. The Bear, 130 F. Supp. 549 (D. Alaska 1955)); (2) actions to reform a policy of marine insurance, Inversiones Calmer, 681 F. Supp. at 102 (citing Paul Marsh, Inc. v. Edwar......
-
Inversiones Calmer, SA v. CE Heath & Co.
...of maritime jurisdiction. Thus disputes over procurement of marine insurance do not fall under maritime jurisdiction, Warner v. The Bear, 130 F.Supp. 549 (D.C.Alaska 1955), although disputes regarding the interpretation or enforcement of insurance contracts do. See e.g., Insurance Co. v. Du......
-
Jan C. Uiterwyk Co., Inc. v. MV Mare Arabico
...owner's real captain to object while the disputed work was, to his obvious knowledge, going on." 313 F.2d at 517. In Warner v. THE BEAR, 130 F.Supp. 549 (D.Alaska 1955), the Court held that the owner's knowledge, his limited participation in negotiations, and his receipt of the benefit of t......