RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW

• Published in: Tort trial & insurance practice law journal Vol. 51; no. 2; pp. 185 - 208
• Main Authors: Greenbaum, Aaron B., Costabel, Attilio M., DiCicco, Mark, Gayer, Sarah Yantasokol, Gayer, Sarah Yantakosol, Goldstein, Alan K., Haas, Kelly, Hamilton, Christopher F., Henderson, Marissa M., Martyn, Jessica Link, Malish, Jedd S., Mau, Donald A., McCarthy, Ryan M., Richards, Scott
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Chicago Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section, American Bar Association 01.01.2016; American Bar Association
• Subjects: Attorneys; Civil rights; Colonies & territories; Consortia; Employment; Federal court decisions; Human resources; Jurisdiction; Law firms; Limit of liability; Litigation; Marine insurance; Maritime law; Offshore; Punitive damages; Ships; State court decisions; United States > US
• ISSN: 1543-3234

Armstrong v. National Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia addressed the extent to which a stevedoring company is subject to personal jurisdiction in another state.240 A longshore worker was injured while unloading a forklift from a vessel at the destination port in Baltimore.241 The plaintiff asserted negligence and other claims against several third parties, including the stevedore company that loaded the forklift onto the vessel in Texas.242 The court held that the plaintiff had not made a prima facie showing that the court had personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state stevedore company.243 The court held that merely loading cargo headed for a particular state, as identified on the bill of lading, is insufficient to allow the destination state to assert personal jurisdiction over a stevedore from the originating state.244 The district court in M-/ Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Inc. addressed the interesting issue of whether the U.S. Patent Act applied to U.S. flagged vessels in international waters.245 The plaintiff alleged patent infringement in connection with pneumatic conveyance systems, which Dynamic Air had installed on two U.S.-flagged ships located in international waters.246 The court examined the language of the Patent Act of 1952, which expressly extends the geographic limits of its protection, by virtue of its broad definition of the "United States," to include "the United States of America, its territories and possessions.