 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
HUGHES v. FOSTER WHEELER CO.3/7/1997
I. INTRODUCTION
Thirty merchant mariners filed complaints against various shipowners and asbestos manufacturers alleging personal injuries and wrongful deaths caused by exposure to asbestos while they served aboard various vessels. The cases were dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens. This is an appeal from the superior court's award of attorney's fees and costs under Alaska Civil Rule 82 entered in conjunction with its forum non conveniens dismissal.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The attorneys for the thirty merchant mariners filed thirty similar complaints in three different superior courts of the State of Alaska, naming multiple defendants. The suits alleged personal injuries and wrongful deaths caused by exposure to asbestos and other substances while the seamen were in the merchant marine. Appellees (Foster) removed twenty-eight of the thirty cases to federal district court, which remanded the cases to state court. On motion of the mariners, the superior court consolidated all thirty cases for the "purposes of hearing [Foster's] motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens" grounds.
The superior court granted the motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. The superior court then awarded Foster $134,905.46 in attorney's fees and $106,782.36 in costs, finding Foster the "prevailing party" pursuant to Civil Rule 82. The mariners appeal the superior court's award of attorney's fees and costs.
III. DISCUSSION
A. The Superior Court Correctly Applied Civil Rule 82.
The mariners argue that admiralty law does not provide for awards of attorney's fees and costs, and therefore the superior court erroneously awarded costs and attorney's
fees to Foster pursuant to Civil Rule 82.
1. Since the case was dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, any prohibition on the award of attorney's fees pursuant to admiralty law is irrelevant.
These consolidated cases were dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The United States Supreme Court recently held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens is not a part of admiralty law. American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 114 S.Ct. 981, 127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994). The court wrote, " he doctrine of forum non conveniens neither originated in admiralty nor has exclusive application there. To the contrary, it is and has long been a doctrine of general application." Id. at 450, 114 S.Ct. at 987.
Even if the mariners are correct in arguing that cases decided pursuant to federal admiralty law cannot support awards of attorney's fees and costs, that argument is inapplicable to a case resolved by a dismissal pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Accordingly, we hold that the superior court did not err in finding that attorney's fees and costs could be awarded pursuant to Civil Rule 82.
2. Admiralty law does not prohibit the superior court from awarding attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Civil Rule 82.
Even assuming that admiralty law applies to an admiralty case dismissed in the superior court pursuant to a forum non conveniens motion, admiralty law does not prohibit the award of attorney's fees and costs in admiralty cases decided in state courts under the savings to suitors jurisdiction.
The United States Constitution provides that the federal judicial power "shall extend . . . to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction." U.S. Const., art. III, § 2, cl. 1. However, federal courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction over maritime and admiralty cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1333 provides in part that
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|