Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Tanker Robert Watt Miller
1992 WL 62527, 957 F. 2d 1575 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In maritime actions, a joint tortfeasor who has paid more than its proportionate share of a plaintiff's damages may seek contribution from a settling joint tortfeasor, and a joint tortfeasor who has settled with the plaintiff is not barred from seeking contribution from another joint tortfeasor, consistent with the comparative fault principle.
Facts:
- In February 1975, the Robert Watt Miller, a tanker owned by Chevron Transport Corp. and operated by Chevron Shipping Corp. (collectively Chevron), collided with the Alaska, a dredge owned by Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (Great Lakes), in the St. Johns River near Jacksonville, Florida.
- As a result of the collision, eight crewmen of the Alaska were injured and two lost their lives.
- Chevron settled with the injured crewmen and the estates of the deceased crewmen for a total of $707,800.
- Great Lakes subsequently settled with all claimants except the estate of Danny Self for a total of $943,199.
- Great Lakes later settled with the Self estate for $2,050,000.
Procedural Posture:
- The injured crewmen and the estates of the deceased filed separate suits against Great Lakes under the Jones Act and general maritime law.
- Great Lakes filed third-party complaints against Chevron for contribution, indemnity, and damage to the Alaska.
- The district court severed the third-party claims against Chevron and tried the cases against Great Lakes before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Great Lakes.
- The crewmen and estates appealed the jury verdict to the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that the district court erred in framing special interrogatories asking the jury to determine the comparative degrees of fault of Great Lakes and Chevron, which was not a party to the suit.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial (Ebanks v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 688 F.2d 716 (11th Cir.1982)).
- After Great Lakes settled with most claimants, the Self claim was then heard in conjunction with Great Lakes’s claims against Chevron in the district court.
- The district court concluded that Great Lakes was 30% responsible and Chevron was 70% responsible, and limited Self’s recovery against Great Lakes to 30% of her damages or $198,406.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the district court’s limitation of Self’s recovery to the percentage of Great Lakes’s fault, holding Self was entitled to recover her entire damages from Great Lakes with a credit for the dollar amount of Chevron's settlement, not a credit based upon Chevron’s percentage of fault (Self v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 832 F.2d 1540 (11th Cir.1987)).
- The sole remaining issue in the district court was Great Lakes’s claims for contribution from Chevron.
- The district court granted Chevron’s motion for summary judgment on the contribution claims, applying a “settlement bar” rule and holding that Great Lakes’s claims were also barred because Great Lakes itself had settled with the claimants.
- Great Lakes appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the pro tanto approach for settlement credits in maritime personal injury cases preclude a non-settling joint tortfeasor from seeking contribution from a settling joint tortfeasor, or bar a settling joint tortfeasor from seeking contribution from a non-settling joint tortfeasor?
Opinions:
Majority - Cox, Circuit Judge
No, neither a settlement bar rule nor a 'settler barred' rule precludes a joint tortfeasor from seeking contribution from another joint tortfeasor in maritime personal injury cases under the pro tanto approach for settlement credits. The court first clarified that previous discussions of a settlement bar rule in Self v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. were dicta and therefore not binding precedent. The court then reviewed the historical evolution of liability distribution among joint tortfeasors in maritime actions, noting the Supreme Court's establishment of the modern right to contribution in Cooper Stevedoring Co. v. Fritz Kopke, Inc. and the adoption of a comparative negligence/proportionate fault approach in United States v. Reliable Transfer Co. The court reaffirmed its adoption of the pro tanto approach for settlement credits from Self, which means non-settling tortfeasors receive a credit for the actual dollar amount of a settlement, rather than a credit based on the settling party's percentage of fault. Recognizing that this pro tanto method may cause a non-settling tortfeasor to bear a disproportionate share, consistent with Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique's philosophy that any inequity should be borne by tortfeasors, not the injured seaman. Given this, the court rejected the adoption of a 'settlement bar' rule, which would prohibit a non-settling tortfeasor from seeking contribution from a settling tortfeasor. The court reasoned that allowing contribution ensures that liability is shared by all joint tortfeasors in proportion to their respective degrees of fault, aligning with Reliable Transfer's quest for a 'just and equitable' allocation of damages and promoting efficient deterrence. The court further rejected the 'settler barred' rule, which would prevent a settling tortfeasor from seeking contribution. Distinguishing Jovovich v. Desco Marine, Inc. as having been decided under a proportionate liability scheme (Leger), the court reasoned that under the pro tanto approach, a settling tortfeasor may still have paid more than its proportionate share of damages. Therefore, a claim for contribution, which presupposes having paid more than one's share, remains viable. The court cited precedent like Wisconsin Barge Line, Inc. v. The Barge Chem 300 and Adams v. Texaco, Inc., which allowed for indemnity or contribution by a settling party for reasonable payments, as consistent with ensuring proportionate fault.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the landscape for contribution claims in maritime personal injury cases following settlements under the Eleventh Circuit's pro tanto rule. By rejecting both the 'settlement bar' and 'settler barred' rules, the court prioritizes the equitable distribution of liability among joint tortfeasors based on comparative fault, even if it might disincentivize settlements to some degree. This decision reinforces the principle that tortfeasors should ultimately bear responsibility commensurate with their actual fault, affecting how parties strategize and negotiate in multi-defendant maritime litigation, particularly in assessing the finality of settlements and the potential for ongoing disputes over contribution.
