Vessel owners risk losing up to 50% of an entire season’s production if an Alaska Child Support Enforcement Division position proves valid. The CSED has frozen and laid claim to 50% of the cash value of a crab vessel’s season product, claiming the crab was owned by the hired captain on board who held the interim use permit required to take the crab. The vessel was owned and operated by a corporation, which employed the crew members. The crewman who purchased the $30 permit was not an owner, director, or officer of the corporation. All crew members were to be paid a share of the vessel’s catch.
The LIN J capsized and sank in the Bering Sea in March, 1999, killing the five crew members aboard. Wrongful death claims were brought on behalf of the estates of all five. Four of the claims were settled. The claim on behalf of the captain’s estate was contested, and ultimately denied by a court that applied the "primary duty doctrine."
A recent federal appellate court decision suggests a vessel owner may avoid the application of painful state employment law by providing in employment contracts that the contract shall be governed exclusively by federal maritime law. In this case, a group of fishing vessel crew members successfully sued for unpaid wages. They also tried to recover the attorneys’ fees they incurred in their suit from the owner. Attorney’s fees are generally not recoverable under federal maritime law, and could not be recovered under that law in this case. But the federal trial judge borrowed and applied a state statute allowing an award of attorneys’ fees whenever an employee successfully sues for unpaid wages.
Employment Litigation
The employment relationship between vessel owner and crew member is generally governed by federal admiralty law. The courts have commonly supplemented that law, to the owner’s detriment, by applying the law of the state where the employment occurred to resolve an employment dispute. State employment law contains a number of provisions favoring employees that are absent from federal maritime law. For example, years ago an Alaska federal judge applied a state statute providing for substantial penalties for delay in making wage payments against a seaman's employer. Federal maritime law did not provide for any such penalty.
Vessel charter, sale, repair and construction contracts; marine mortgages; cargo; fish sale, processing and transportation; tug and tow; non-maritime contracts incident to the conduct of marine business; documentation filings and corrections.
Property Damage
Yes. For example, the owner of a vessel subject to a mortgage lien may fail to pay for fuel and services rendered to his vessel, which would give rise to a "lien for necessaries," may fail to pay crew, giving rise to a lien for seamen’s wages, and may cause an accident with the vessel, giving rise to a lien for personal injury or property damage. All these liens and other maritime and non-maritime liens may co-exist.
It has long been clear that federal admiralty law governs seamen’s personal injury claims to the exclusion of state workers’ compensation schemes. In a muddled 1962 decision, however, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed a decision allowing an injured crab fisherman, who undoubtedly was a seaman, to avail himself of Alaska Workers’ Compensation remedies.
Ship mortgages and certain types of marine casualty, boating accident and commercial transaction give rise to maritime liens against vessels that secure payment of an underlying obligation. Maritime liens may only be foreclosed upon by means of an admiralty action in the appropriate United States District Court. This page is intended to provide general information on maritime lien foreclosure actions in the District of Alaska. These materials are not intended as legal advice, which should be sought from a qualified attorney.
Debt Collection
Vessel arrest, maritime attachment; mortgage and lien foreclosure and other commercial debt collection actions in Alaska state and federal courts.