Judge dismisses 2 of 3 claims in lawsuit over yacht destroyed in transit

A federal judge has dismissed two of three claims against a boat dealer and transportation company that are being sued for $1.4 million after a yacht was destroyed in transit from North Carolina to Connecticut.

According to the initial complaint filed by plaintiff Max Zach Corp. last July, the 2006 48 Fountain Express Cruiser was sent to Ogden, North Carolina-based boat dealer Marker 17 Marine in late 2020 for several modifications costing approximately $315,000. The 48-foot, 11-ton yacht was modified, packaged and loaded for transport from Wilmington, North Carolina, to Greenwich, Connecticut, by the dealership.

Bath, North Carolina-based Premium Carriers Inc. was the carrier selected by Marker 17 to transfer the vessel in May 2021. The complaint states that the $750,000 yacht was destroyed when Premium flipped the trailer and the vessel in New Jersey during delivery. Max Zach Corp. accused the two defendants of negligence.

The plaintiff said Marker 17 had a duty to choose a competent carrier to properly load and transport the vessel back after the modifications, and that the company breached the contract when it failed to return the yacht fully modified and retrofitted. A third claim alleged that Premium breached its duty when it failed to properly load and transfer the vessel intact and functioning as modified.

window.googletag = window.googletag || {cmd: []};
googletag.cmd.push(function() {
googletag.defineSlot('/21776187881/FW-Responsive-Main_Content-Slot1', [[300, 100], [320, 50], [728, 90], [468, 60]], 'div-gpt-ad-1709668545404-0').defineSizeMapping(gptSizeMaps.banner1).addService(googletag.pubads());
googletag.pubads().enableSingleRequest();
googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs();
googletag.enableServices();
});

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1709668545404-0'); });

The plaintiff’s case

Max Zach Corp.’s most recent second amended complaint filed in October 2023 includes three allegations against Marker 17: negligence, breach of contract and conversion. The plaintiff also alleges that Premium’s insurance carrier paid only a portion of the claim demanded by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff states Marker 17 had an opportunity to inspect the trailer and the truck designated by Premium to tow the vessel.

“Prior to loading the vessel, Marker 17 knew, or should have known from sight alone, that the trailer was starkly insufficient to safely transport the vessel across the street let alone across the East Coast of the U.S.,” the complaint alleges. “The vessel overwhelmed the trailer in both size and weight.”

The complaint also alleges that Marker 17 knew or should have known that the truck selected to tow the trailer and vessel was “by sight utterly insufficient in both power and size to transport the yacht.” It states that the trailer lacked capacity to pull the total weight of the boat, the four engines, full fuel and water tanks, and personal gear.

window.googletag = window.googletag || {cmd: []};
googletag.cmd.push(function() {
googletag.defineSlot('/21776187881/fw-responsive-main_content-slot2', [[468, 60], [728, 90], [300, 100], [320, 50]], 'div-gpt-ad-1665767472470-0').defineSizeMapping(gptSizeMaps.banner1).addService(googletag.pubads());
googletag.pubads().enableSingleRequest();
googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs();
googletag.enableServices();
});

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1665767472470-0'); });

Additionally, the complaint states that a pre-delivery payment was made to Marker 17. Max Zach Corp. is suing Marker 17 and Premium for damages of over $1.4 million, plus legal costs.

Defense responds

Answering the second amended complaint last Tuesday, Marker 17 denied it had entered a contract with the plaintiff. Marker 17 also denied it knew or should have known from sight alone that the trailer was insufficient to transport the vessel.

Marker 17 argued that whatever damage the plaintiff incurred has already been paid in full. It said that if the vessel suffered any loss, damage or delay, that was caused by a third party over which Marker 17 had no control.

window.googletag = window.googletag || {cmd: []};
googletag.cmd.push(function() {
googletag.defineSlot('/21776187881/fw-responsive-main_content-slot3', [[728, 90], [468, 60], [320, 50], [300, 100]], 'div-gpt-ad-1665767553440-0').defineSizeMapping(gptSizeMaps.banner1).addService(googletag.pubads());
googletag.pubads().enableSingleRequest();
googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs();
googletag.enableServices();
});

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1665767553440-0'); });

In its answer to the plaintiff’s second amended complaint on Oct. 31, 2023, Premium acknowledged that the vessel was damaged during transportation but denied that the truck and trailer used were insufficient to safely transport it.

Premium argued that whatever liability it had to the plaintiff for damage to the vessel had been paid in full by Premium’s insurance. Both Premium and Marker 17 cited the Carmack Amendment to the ICC Termination Act of 1995, which limits carrier liability for actual loss of provable damages to property.

2 claims dismissed

In an order on May 14, 2024, Judge Vernon D. Oliver of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut approved a motion to drop the negligence and conversion claims against Marker 17 and Premium. Oliver declared that under Connecticut law, the statute of limitations for negligence claims is two years. He ruled the conversion claim overlapped with the breach-of-contract claim.

This leaves one claim for breach of contract against both Marker 17 and Premium – a claim that Marker 17 denied in its response last Tuesday. Marker 17’s defense declined FreightWaves’ request for comment on the ongoing litigation. Premium Carriers Inc.’s defense did not respond to a request for comment.

Thomas Decea, an attorney with Fishman Decea & Feldman representing the plaintiff, said in a statement to FreightWaves: “It was the responsibility of Marker 17 under the contract to return the vessel to Connecticut. It failed to do that. [The] plaintiff is looking to Marker 17 for damages. If it [Marker 17] believes Premium is liable, that is between them. The damage amount comes down to the value of the vessel, so it’s a battle of the valuation experts.”

window.googletag = window.googletag || {cmd: []};
googletag.cmd.push(function() {
googletag.defineSlot('/21776187881/fw-responsive-main_content-slot4', [[300, 100], [320, 50], [728, 90], [468, 60]], 'div-gpt-ad-1709668086344-0').defineSizeMapping(gptSizeMaps.banner1).addService(googletag.pubads());
googletag.pubads().enableSingleRequest();
googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs();
googletag.enableServices();
});

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1709668086344-0'); });

The court’s deadline to complete expert discovery is set for June 14.

The post Judge dismisses 2 of 3 claims in lawsuit over yacht destroyed in transit appeared first on FreightWaves.

Source: freightwaves - Judge dismisses 2 of 3 claims in lawsuit over yacht destroyed in transit
Editor: Caleb Revill

address

social

Group Companies

Freightalent International 2018 - 2024 (Closed) | Website Design by
Privacy Policy
 | 
Cookies
menu