'Norway" victims want more money

[jleq]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/5min/story/1060374.html

[JohnIreland]

They will have a hard job getting the case reopened.

[crew mom]

Monday will be the 6 yr anniversary

[endymion6942]

Good luck on getting this reopened.

[terrymtex01]

I agree. I don't think they will be very successful.

[newmexicoNita]

And I would have to say, I hope they are not successful. I am not judging right and wrong, but I am judging the timing. Any action should have been taken at least 3 or 4 years ago.

 

Nita

[nitnyleo]

NCL admitted to CRIMINAL negligence in a plea deal. . . ie: they admitted to wantonly disregarding human life in the operation of the ship. And, because it was a deal, they got off easy . . . the NCL scumbags responsible for operating the ship should be doing jail time.

 

Best wishes to the complainants in the reconsideration of their case. What was an accident is now a case of corporate manslaughter. Hopefully, the ownership of all of NCLs ships will become the property of the complainants. NCL needs to be put out of business. They are too irresponsible to operate a cruise line.

 

Had the killed/injured been passengers, I'm sure no one would be hoping that the complainants would lose.

[nitnyleo]

And I would have to say, I hope they are not successful. I am not judging right and wrong, but I am judging the timing. Any action should have been taken at least 3 or 4 years ago.

 

Nita

 

The action was taken over 4 years ago and was settled as a common accident claim. NCLs admission to CRIMINAL negligence justifies the re-opening of the case to seek additional compensation.

 

NO MORE MURDER FOR PROFIT!

[ikelmay]

And I would have to say, I hope they are not successful. I am not judging right and wrong, but I am judging the timing. Any action should have been taken at least 3 or 4 years ago.

 

Nita

 

I'm not sure why you would hope they are not successful? I'm not a corporation basher by any means, but it certainly smacks of a company at least trying to deceive litigants by concealing relevant and pertinent information.

[Don Haynes]

I'm not sure why you would hope they are not successful? I'm not a corporation basher by any means, but it certainly smacks of a company at least trying to deceive litigants by concealing relevant and pertinent information.

 

I don't know of any corporation or any litigants that are open in any litigation. Why are you suggesting otherwise? In court proceedings only answer the questions asked, not prove the other's case for them....

[CruisinMaterial]

Best wishes to the complainants in the reconsideration of their case. What was an accident is now a case of corporate manslaughter. Hopefully, the ownership of all of NCLs ships will become the property of the complainants. NCL needs to be put out of business. They are too irresponsible to operate a cruise line.

 

Wow! Someone needs to take a CHILL pill! I do wish the injured well in their lawsuit although I don't believe they'll be successful. Furthermore, I doubt NCL will lose any of their fleet should the clients be successful. Take your NCL hate elsewhere. :p

[terrymtex01]

I'm not sure why you would hope they are not successful? I'm not a corporation basher by any means, but it certainly smacks of a company at least trying to deceive litigants by concealing relevant and pertinent information.

 

I can tell you why I do not wish them success. Because they settled. And I am very sure when they settled they signed an agreement to not hold NCL liable for any further damages. If they did not sign anything to that end, then more power to them for going after everything they can get from NCL. If their lawyer or representatives where unsuccessful in uncovering what had to be public information (an investigation into corporate criminal activities) then maybe they should file suit against their own lawyers.

[Ginny, not Hermione]

The action was taken over 4 years ago and was settled as a common accident claim. NCLs admission to CRIMINAL negligence justifies the re-opening of the case to seek additional compensation.

 

NO MORE MURDER FOR PROFIT!

 

I can bet that every settlement came with a "Final Settlement" sign off, in order to get the money the victims or the survivors signed off on any future claims.

 

I doubt any further claims will be futile

[Globaliser]

What was an accident is now a case of corporate manslaughter.

Er, no.

 

NCL admitted criminal negligence.

 

That does not make it corporate manslaughter, which is a much more serious offence, with which NCL was not charged and to which NCL has not pleaded guilty.

[mbisson]

What was an accident is now a case of corporate manslaughter.

 

 

NO MORE MURDER FOR PROFIT!

 

So which is it? Make up your mine ;)

[nitnyleo]

Only the Filipino crewmembers are seeking more compensation.

 

After the admission to criminal negligence, the judge ordered additional compensation be paid to the victims, even though their civil suit had already been settled years earlier.

 

Unfortunately for the Filipinos, their employment contracts stated that any/all claims had to be arbitrated in the Philippines. They never had standing to sue in a US court. That probably suffices for "common" negligence claims; but, the mens rea component of the criminal charges

should now be sufficient to overcome that part of their contacts, as I don't think the Filipinos would willingly agree to losing life or limb if they knew NCL would show a total disregard for human life in their pursuit of the dollar.

 

The last paragraph of this story is why I will never sail NCL again:

http://www.miamiherald.com/486/story/1060374.html

[nitnyleo]

So which is it? Make up your mine ;)

 

The charges are not mutually exclusive . . .they can both be pursued at the same time, and they both can be recoverable at the same time.

 

It depends on your jurisdiction . . . there's a legal fiction in most jurisdictions that a business/company/corporation cannot commit murder. Corporate manslaughter is the remedy to overcome that fiction.

[CruisnGram]

The last paragraph of this story is why I will never sail NCL again:

http://www.miamiherald.com/486/story/1060374.html

 

And the last paragraph was stated by the attorney for those injured. Of course he is going to say what he feels gives his clients the best advantage for further settlement. Most of us are not in the habit of taking what a lawyer says as the truth. LOL

 

CG

[smeyer418]

There are lots of policy issues at work here.

1. Is the finality of a settlememt

2. choice of law issues

3. pre-employment contracts

4. punitive damages

at least

 

1. Finality of a settlement. The law is pretty clear most settlements are final absent fraud or incompetence of the person settling. Fraud means the settlement was procured by actual fraud. Was there something that the defendant has a duty to disclose that it hid.

In an IBM case the attorney for IBM withheld a document which was in his briefcase that could have been useful to the other side. Besides reopening the case the attorney was disbarred. But normally the fact of a criminal investigation is not a basis for a reopening. This is because you also have to show the underlying facts about the boilers condition was not disclosed not merely that NCL plead guilty to an issue concerning the boilers. You have to show that NCL hid some fact about the boilers not a fact concerning that an criminal investigation was on going. The law favors finality.

2. Choice of law issues. Does the choice of law for Philipino nationals violate in a contract the Philipino national has signed violate some US public policy issue? This has already been litigated. A foreign national working on a foreign flagged ship that happens to have an accident in the US is not a favorite of the US Courts. It would be as if you a US national has an accident on a US airline in the Philippines and you would not want to ligigate the issue under Philipino law(or any other law for that matter). The payouts under Philipino law I can assure you are less than in the US. So the US Courts(or state court) interest in such a case are pretty small.

 

3. pre employment contracts with choice of law and arbitration provisions. I personally don't like these contracts I don't think that the employee has any power to say no given the current job market but the courts and the US Suprement Court have routinely upheld such contracts even when there are statutory rights at issue. I don't like that result but it is the law.

 

4. The real cruix of the issue here is whether the employees are entitled to get punitive damages(damages meant to punish the wrong doer for the error of its ways). Punitive damages are sort of a crap shoot anyway dependent on the state where you sue and the juries. NCL has already been fined which is meant to do the same thing. When Colin Veitch said arbitration saved $100 million dollars he was talking(I think) mostly about punitive damages. It was also before the Supreme Court limited punitive damages to no more than three(?) times the actual compensatory damages. Also punitive damages are generally not insurable. The wrong doer has to pay those themselves. Some states allow punitive damages for any "egregious" conduct which can be simply going through a red light and causing an injury. Some states limit it to really egregious conduct which NCL may or may not have done. Some states prohibit them completely(in NY an employee can not sue for an injury for punitive damages-workers comp bars any lawsuit and is the only remedy against the employer when someone is hurt-although many times the employee can sue someone else like the land owner or landlord or the car manufacturer but that is for another long post). Most companies from overseas hate US punitive damage laws because the are so arbitrary from state to state and can't be insured against and are totally unpredictible(until the recent limitation) as to what the number the jury will come up with. Punitive damages are almost unheard of outside the US with most countries thinking its the government's responsibility to punish wrong doers not the civil injury system......

[mbisson]

The charges are not mutually exclusive . . .they can both be pursued at the same time, and they both can be recoverable at the same time.

 

It depends on your jurisdiction . . . there's a legal fiction in most jurisdictions that a business/company/corporation cannot commit murder. Corporate manslaughter is the remedy to overcome that fiction.

 

So you've convicted them of both

It must be nice to have such power & wisdom ;)

[Sea Hound]

So you've convicted them of both

It must be nice to have such power & wisdom ;)

Hey, Montster! Welcome back! You missed a great time!

 

Hope your vacation was full of fun and sun!

 

SH:D

[njhorseman]

 

4. The real cruix of the issue here is whether the employees are entitled to get punitive damages(damages meant to punish the wrong doer for the error of its ways). Punitive damages are sort of a crap shoot anyway dependent on the state where you sue and the juries. NCL has already been fined which is meant to do the same thing. When Colin Veitch said arbitration saved $100 million dollars he was talking(I think) mostly about punitive damages. It was also before the Supreme Court limited punitive damages to no more than three(?) times the actual compensatory damages. Also punitive damages are generally not insurable. The wrong doer has to pay those themselves. Some states allow punitive damages for any "egregious" conduct which can be simply going through a red light and causing an injury. Some states limit it to really egregious conduct which NCL may or may not have done. Some states prohibit them completely(in NY an employee can not sue for an injury for punitive damages-workers comp bars any lawsuit and is the only remedy against the employer when someone is hurt-although many times the employee can sue someone else like the land owner or landlord or the car manufacturer but that is for another long post). Most companies from overseas hate US punitive damage laws because the are so arbitrary from state to state and can't be insured against and are totally unpredictible(until the recent limitation) as to what the number the jury will come up with. Punitive damages are almost unheard of outside the US with most countries thinking its the government's responsibility to punish wrong doers not the civil injury system......

 

I have to disagree with you on a couple of points in your analysis of the punitive damages issue.

 

First, the insurability of punitive damages is in general not one of availablility of coverage, but rather whether punitive damages are insurable, as a matter of public policy, under state law. While punitive damages coverage might not always have been available in the domestic market (I can't speak to the current market as I no longer work in the insurance industry), coverage has generally been readily available through surplus lines markets in such places as Bermuda and London. As to the law, in the majority of states (probably about 30), punitive damages assessed for the defendant's direct actions are insurable, and in almost every state, punitive damages assessed for vicarious liability are insurable. One major exception is New York, which prohibits punitive damages coverage for both direct and vicarious liability.

 

The Supreme Court has never drawn a clear line in the sand on punitive damage limits, although it seems to be inching closer to doing so. The most recent ruling, last year in the Exxon Valdez case, did impose a 1:1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages, but that decision applies solely to federal maritime common law...although some analysts believe it could be a hint of things to come. In other recent rulings, the Supreme Court has imposed what I would call "touchie-feelie" guidelines about "reasonableness", and in one case did mention "single digit" ratios of punitive to compensatory damages. So far the court seems to have decided each case based on its individual merits rather than laying down a hard and fast mathematical formula.

[smeyer418]

I have to disagree with you on a couple of points in your analysis of the punitive damages issue.

 

First, the insurability of punitive damages is in general not one of availablility of coverage, but rather whether punitive damages are insurable, as a matter of public policy, under state law. While punitive damages coverage might not always have been available in the domestic market (I can't speak to the current market as I no longer work in the insurance industry), coverage has generally been readily available through surplus lines markets in such places as Bermuda and London. As to the law, in the majority of states (probably about 30), punitive damages assessed for the defendant's direct actions are insurable, and in almost every state, punitive damages assessed for vicarious liability are insurable. One major exception is New York, which prohibits punitive damages coverage for both direct and vicarious liability.

 

The Supreme Court has never drawn a clear line in the sand on punitive damage limits, although it seems to be inching closer to doing so. The most recent ruling, last year in the Exxon Valdez case, did impose a 1:1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages, but that decision applies solely to federal maritime common law...although some analysts believe it could be a hint of things to come. In other recent rulings, the Supreme Court has imposed what I would call "touchie-feelie" guidelines about "reasonableness", and in one case did mention "single digit" ratios of punitive to compensatory damages. So far the court seems to have decided each case based on its individual merits rather than laying down a hard and fast mathematical formula.

fair comments but I do think they telegraphed that 3 to 1 is about it....period no matter how egregious.

[Mooder]

Hey, Montster! Welcome back! You missed a great time!

 

Hope your vacation was full of fun and sun!

 

SH:D

 

I believe he is away another week. He mentioned he might check in occasionally on his lap top. So, I think that was a drive-by. But, I'll be hoping you get a response. Good to see you as well, SH, missed you last week.

[njhorseman]

fair comments but I do think they telegraphed that 3 to 1 is about it....period no matter how egregious.

 

 

Do you have a case where the court mentioned or imposed a 3 to 1 guideline, because I couldn't find one. Of course I'm not a lawyer, so I could have easily overlooked or misinterpreted something.