Practices & Industries

Contact

Katie Matison
206.223.7029
matisonk@lanepowell.com

Brewster Jamieson
907.264.3325
jamiesonb@lanepowell.com

« Back to all Practices

Admiralty and Maritime

Lane Powell offers one of the largest and most diverse maritime and admiralty law practices on the West Coast. The Firm specializes in defending claims against ship owners and charterers in the blue water shipping, coastwise, tug barge and fishing industries on behalf of shipping interests, P&I clubs and international marine underwriters. Typical claims include:

  • Collision
  • Cargo damage and bills of lading
  • Defense of seamen’s personal injury and death
  • Ship repairer liability
  • Oil and hazardous substance spills
  • Wreck removal and salvage
  • Maritime liens and vessel arrest
  • Charter parties and towage contracts
  • Marine insurance coverage
  • Maritime products liability
  • Vessel finance

Lane Powell’s admiralty and maritime attorneys themselves have backgrounds in the merchant marine and fisheries industries as law clerks for admiralty judges and as officers in the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, as examples. Based upon the knowledge and experience of its maritime attorneys, Lane Powell has the experience to serve international maritime interests in their legal, litigation and business needs in the U.S. Pacific Coast.  In addition, Lane Powell is a correspondent for the Korea P&I Club.

Lane Powell has the proven advantage of bringing the full range of the Firm’s experience to its maritime and admiralty practice, including business acquisitions, international transactions, liens, insurance regulations, consumer protection, liaison with governmental and administrative agencies, corporate formation, tax, real estate, land use, labor and employment problems, antitrust, finance and potential white collar criminal defense and regulatory compliance issues.

Admiralty and Maritime

Baker, Gabriel

Baker, Gabriel

Shareholder
Seattle
206.223.7964
bakerg@lanepowell.com
Beard, Mark G.

Beard, Mark G.

Shareholder
Seattle
206.223.7014
beardm@lanepowell.com
Beard, Ronald E.

Beard, Ronald E.

Shareholder
Seattle
206.223.7726
beardr@lanepowell.com
Jamieson, Brewster H.

Jamieson, Brewster H.

Shareholder
Anchorage
907.264.3325
jamiesonb@lanepowell.com
Johnson, Mark Edwin

Johnson, Mark Edwin

Shareholder
Seattle
206.223.7052
johnsonm@lanepowell.com
Matison, Katie

Matison, Katie

Shareholder
Seattle
206.223.7029
matisonk@lanepowell.com
Moss, Gordon W.

Moss, Gordon W.

Of Counsel
Seattle
206.223.7000
mossg@lanepowell.com
Nelson, Kathleen A.

Nelson, Kathleen A.

Shareholder
Seattle
206.223.7268
nelsonk@lanepowell.com
Odom, Jeffrey M.

Odom, Jeffrey M.

Shareholder
Seattle
206.223.7093
odomj@lanepowell.com
Smith, Jennifer K.

Smith, Jennifer K.

Attorney
Seattle
206.223.6114
smithj@lanepowell.com
Smith, Vicki L.

Smith, Vicki L.

Shareholder
Portland
503.778.2138
smithv@lanepowell.com

Admiralty and Maritime

Representative Matters

  • Glacier Bay Oil Spill (Cook Inlet, Alaska), United States District Court, Western District of Washington. Served as counsel for London Underwriters in a declaratory judgment action concerning rights and duties under primary and excess layers of insurance.
  • Represented world’s largest zinc and lead producer in negotiating 20-year contracts of carriage with both a tug and barge line and ocean carriers for shipment of ore concentrates from the Red Dog Mine in Alaska.
  • PACCAR v. Kennedy Jenks Consultants and Underground Detection Services, Western District of Washington. Brought subrogation action on behalf of London Underwriters to recover over $400,000 paid to repair flood damage to Fortune 500 truck manufacturing company.
  • Eastern Ship Supply, Inc. v. Merit Steamship Agency, Inc., United States District Court, Western District of Washington. Served as lead counsel for Merit Steamship Agency, Inc., in ship supply case. Dismissed with prejudice on motion for summary judgment.
  • Columbia Transport v. Hapag Lloyd (America), Inc. Defended ocean carrier in cargo dispute in claim of overland carrier and freight for warder. Dismissed with prejudice in favor of Hapag Lloyd.
  • In the Matter of the F/V PACESETTER, United States District Court, Western District of Washington. Pursue limitation of liability action on behalf of vessel owner.
  • In the Matter of the F/V NOWITNA, United States District Court, Western District of Washington. Pursue limitation of liability action on behalf of vessel owner.
  • Lesure v. ASCW, United States District Court, Western District of Washington. Defend personal injury cancer claim of customer service representative assigned to work aboard cruise ship. Judgment at trial in favor of shipowner.
  • Represented United States Mining Company regarding documentation of foreign barge and regulatory issues with Customs Department for international transportation of mining cargo.

Admiralty and Maritime

Date
Title
01.29.2010

Ninth Circuit Holds that Rule B Attachments Must Be Vacated When the Plaintiff Has Failed to Show a Valid Prima Facie Admiralty Claim

Under Rule B of the Supplemental Admiralty Rules, a plaintiff can only attach a defendant’s property if four conditions are met: (1) plaintiff has a valid prima facie admiralty claim against the defendant; (2) defendant cannot be found within the district; (3) property of the defendant can be found within the district; and (4) there is no statutory or maritime law bar to the attachment. The Supplemental Rules permit the defendant to object to the attachment through a Rule E hearing, at which the defendant argues that one of the four conditions has not been met. The burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the attachment should continue. At issue in this case was whether Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services (“Equatorial”) had carried its burden to show a valid prima facie admiralty claim against MISC Berhad (“MISC”).

11.24.2009

The Second Circuit Holds That Electronic Fund Transfers Processed by an Intermediary Bank Are Not Property Subject to Attachment Under Rule B

On October 16, 2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in The Shipping Corporation of India v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd. The Court held that electronic fund transfers (“EFTs”) processed by an intermediary bank are not property subject to attachment under Rule B, overruling its earlier decision in Winter Storm Shipping, Ltd. v. TPI.

05.26.2009

Ninth Circuit Enforces Forum Selection Clause in Ocean Bill of Lading in Favor of Subcontracting Vessel

Last week in Mazda Motors of America, Inc. and Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. M/V COUGAR ACE, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 2009), a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals enforced the Japanese forum selection clause contained within an ocean carrier’s bill of lading in an in rem action filed by the cargo owner seeking damages for cargo damage against the contracting vessel. Specifically, the Court held that the M/V COUGAR ACE, which was operated but not owned by the ocean carrier Mitsui, was entitled to assert the defenses and protection of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”), 46 U.S.C. Section 30701, Notes, contained within Mitsui’s ocean bills of lading that were extended to the M/V COUGAR ACE through the Himalaya Clause. View full article (PDF).

03.06.2009

Forum Selection Clauses in Intermodal Shipment Under a Through Bill Of Lading: Should COGSA or Carmack Apply to the Inland Shipment

In February 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision examining “which federal statute governs a maritime case involving a train wreck.” In Regal Beloit Corp., et al. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd., et al., — F.3d — 2009 WL 251949 (C.A. 9 (Cal.) (2009)) the Court refused to enforce a Tokyo forum selection clause contained in a through bill of lading issued by Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. (“K-line”). The through bill of lading contained a Himalaya Clause extending the ambit of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”), 46 U.S.C. 30701 (Note) to the inland portion of the shipment. The Ninth Circuit held, however, that despite the Himalaya Clause in the bill of lading issued by K-line, the inland shipment was controlled by the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. Section 10502(e). View full article (PDF).

06.25.2008

Exxon v. Baker: The United States Supreme Court Limits Punitive Damage Awards Under Maritime Law

On 25 June 2008, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, concerning the limits of punitive damages which may be assessed under federal maritime law. The Court held that under federal general maritime law governing maritime cases, an award of punitive damages may be greater than a 1:1 ratio as compared with compensatory damages. The Supreme Court reduced the prior $2.5 billion punitive damages award to $500 million. View full article (PDF).

04.08.2008

Ninth Circuit Applies U.S. Maritime Lien to a Pervasively Foreign Dispute

On 11 March 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Trans-Tec Asia v. M/V Harmony Container. View full article (PDF).

03.31.2008

Court Holds Any Contractual Waiver of Uberrimae Fidei Must be Explicit

On 20 March 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rendered its decision in New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. C’Est Moi, Inc., addressing the maritime insurance doctrine of Uberrimae Fidei, or the duty of the assured and insurer of utmost good faith, for the second time in as many months. View full article (PDF).

10.01.2001

Comparison of Shipowners

Matison, Katie

Nearly all maritime nations, with the exception of the United States, have ratified either the 1957 or 1976 Conventions. View full article (PDF).