Circuit Watcher

New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. C’Est Moi, Inc., 9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2008

admin — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:33:33 +0000

06-55031 New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. C’Est Moi, Inc.
Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judge, and Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum,¹ Senior District Judge.
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge: We consider the doctrine that’s on everyone’s lips: uberrimae fidei. … Uberrimae fidei is a “longstanding federal maritime doctrine” that “applies to marine insurance contracts.” … The parties didn’t attempt to contract out of uberrimae fidei, and C’Est Moi misrepresented material facts in the insurance policy application. NHIC was therefore entitled to rescind the policy, so the district court correctly granted NHIC summary judgment. New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. C’Est Moi, Inc.

The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. [↩]

U.S. v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins, 9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008

admin — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:19:01 +0000

05-56274 U.S. v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins
Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Raymond C. Fisher, and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges.
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: This case arises from a civil complaint brought by the U.S. Government for the forfeiture of 64,695 pounds of shark fins found on board the King Diamond II (“KD II”), a United States vessel. Claimant-Appellant Tai Loong Hong Marine Products, Ltd. (“TLH”) owned the shark fins. TLH, a Hong Kong company, had chartered the KD II and ordered it to meet foreign fishing vessels on the high seas, purchase shark fins from those vessels, transport the fins to Guatemala, and deliver them to TLH. The Government seized the fins pursuant to the Shark Finning Prohibition Act (“SFPA”), which makes it unlawful for any person aboard a U.S. fishing vessel to possess shark fins obtained through prohibited “shark finning.” 16 U.S.C. § 1857(1)(P)(ii). TLH does not contest that, on its behalf, the KD II purchased the fins at sea from foreign vessels that engaged in shark finning. Instead, it argues that the KD II is not a fishing vessel under 16 U.S.C. § 1802(18)(B), and for that reason the forfeiture of the shark fins it possessed would violate due process. We agree that neither the statute nor the regulations provided fair notice to TLH that it would be considered a fishing vessel under § 1802(18)(B). We therefore reverse the judgment of forfeiture and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … U.S. v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins.

Cain v. Transocean Offshore USA, Inc., 5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2008

admin — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:47:32 +0000

05-30963 Cain v. Transocean Offshore USA, Inc.
Before KING, GARZA, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
KING, Circuit Judge: This case requires us to consider the continued viability of our longstanding precedent holding that a watercraft under construction is not a “vessel in navigation” for purposes of the Jones Act. We hold that the Supreme Court’s decision in Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005), has not effectively overruled that precedent because the decision did not concern or address the point at which a vessel-to-be actually becomes a vessel. We therefore REVERSE the district court’s denial of summary judgment and REMAND for further proceedings. … Cain v. Transocean Offshore USA, Inc.

Trans-Tec Asia v. M/V Harmony Container, 9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2008

admin — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:01:22 +0000

06-55355 Federal Trans-Tec Asia v. M/V Harmony Container
Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, A. Wallace Tashima and M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges.
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: Like many maritime cases, this case involves a foreign-flagged vessel that sailed in and out of United States ports. And, like many maritime cases, because of the geographic scope of the high seas,1 United States law may, in some cases, be applicable to transactions beyond our country’s territorial waters and borders. And, like many maritime cases, the suit here arose against the vessel while it was docked in a United States port. The question we consider is whether a foreign supplier, by supplying fuel to a foreign-flagged vessel in a foreign port under an agreement that United States law applied to the transaction, may obtain a maritime lien under the Federal Maritime Lien Act, 46 U.S.C. § 31301 et seq. … Trans-Tec Asia v. M/V Harmony Container.