In Re the Complaint and Petition of Pamina LLC for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 10, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01679
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 PAMINA, LLC, as owner of the vessel, M/V IN ADMIRALTY 8 PAMINA (Official Number 1143720), BRIAN PICKERING and LAURIE PICKERING, as No. 2:22-cv-01679-KKE 9 sole members of PAMINA, LLC, and MARKEL AMERICAN INSURANCE 10 COMPANY, as subrogee of Pamina, LLC, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND Brian Pickering and Laurie Pickering, DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR 11 SUMMARY JUDGMENT Third-Party Plaintiffs, 12

v. 13

DELTA MARINE INDUSTRIES, INC., N C 14 POWER SYSTEMS CO., GLENDINNING PRODUCTS LLC, and DOCKMATE, INC., 15

Third-Party Defendants. 16

IN RE: COMPLAINT AND PETITION OF 17 PAMINA, LLC, as owner of the vessel, PAMINA, FOR EXONERATION FROM OR 18 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 19 While the Pamina, a 64-foot yacht, was transiting through the Ballard Locks in May 2022, 20 it abruptly started to reverse while its engine control levers were in neutral. Before the Pamina’s 21 owners could shut off its engines, the Pamina allided1 with multiple other vessels, causing damage 22 23 1 An “allision” as used in admiralty law refers to a violent encounter of a moving vessel and a stationary object, whereas a “collision” is the violent encounter of moving vessels. See 2 ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW § 14:1 (6th 24 ed.). 1 to itself, the other vessels, and a passenger on another vessel. This admiralty action followed, to 2 determine liability for the damage resulting from the allision. 3 Third-Party Defendant Glendinning Products LLC (“Glendinning”), which manufactured

4 one of the engine control systems installed on the Pamina, has moved for summary judgment on 5 all claims asserted against it. Dkt. No. 114. The Court has considered the parties’ briefing, the 6 remainder of the record, and the oral argument of counsel. Because there remain, at this stage of 7 the lawsuit, disputes of fact as to Glendinning’s liability on most of the claims, the Court cannot 8 find that Glendinning is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and therefore denies the motion, 9 except to the extent that the parties agree that one claim may be dismissed. 10 I. BACKGROUND 11 The Pamina is a 2003 Grand Alaskan Trawler equipped (at the time of the allision in May 12 2022 that gave rise to this lawsuit) with marine diesel engines, electronic engine controls

13 (manufactured by Glendinning), a wireless remote-control system for the engines (manufactured 14 by Third-Party Defendant Dockmate, Inc.), and bow thruster controls, along with other system 15 controls. See Dkt. No. 80 ¶ 5. Although the current owners of the Pamina (Third-Party Plaintiffs 16 Brian and Laurie Pickering) are not the original owners and the vessel has had another name in the 17 past, the Glendinning engine controls have been present on the vessel now known as the Pamina 18 ever since it was built. Dkt. No. 115 at 20, 53–55; Dkt. No. 121-1 at 6, 11. 19 When the Pickerings bought the Pamina in Maryland in 2018, the vessel was professionally 20 inspected and that inspection yielded no concerns about the boat, its engines, or its electrical 21 system. Dkt. No. 115 at 10–14. The Pamina then sailed from Maryland to Florida so that the boat 22 could be shipped to the Pacific Northwest. Id. at 10–12, 48. While the Pamina was in Florida, it

23 was stored in Fort Lauderdale at Atlantic Yacht Services. Id. at 15–16, 47. Atlantic Yacht Services 24 1 recommended that the Pickerings install the Dockmate remote control system and the Pickerings 2 agreed. Id. at 15–18. 3 After the Dockmate system was installed, the Pamina was shipped to Victoria, British

4 Columbia, and then cruised from Victoria to Seattle’s Lake Union on July 18, 2018. Dkt. No. 115 5 at 63. Over the next approximately four years, until the date of the allision, the Pickerings logged 6 more than 500 hours of engine runtime. Dkt. No. 115 at 19, 23. The Pickerings did not experience 7 or report any problems with the Glendinning system during that time, nor did they notice or report 8 any problems with the Glendinning system on the date of the allision before it occurred. See Dkt. 9 No. 115 at 23, 30–31. From September 10, 2021, through early April 2022, the Pamina was stored 10 at the Delta Marine facility for work on its engines and engine systems, which was performed by 11 N C Power, Delta Marine and/or other contractors and subcontractors. Dkt. No. 115 at 32–33. 12 Between the time that the Pickerings retrieved the Pamina from the Delta Marine facility and the

13 date of the allision the next month, the Pickerings logged about five hours of engine runtime. Dkt. 14 No. 80 ¶ 17. 15 On the date of the allision, May 28, 2022, the Pickerings departed their Seattle marina for 16 Poulsbo, via the Ballard Locks. Dkt. No. 115 at 20, 23. On that day, the Dockmate remote control 17 system did not work properly, so the Pickerings used the engine controls in the pilothouse instead 18 of the remote system. Dkt. No. 115 at 25, 45. The throttles appeared to be working fine, and Brian 19 Pickering made a mental note to investigate the problem with the Dockmate system at another 20 time. Id. at 25, 34. 21 The Pickerings navigated to the locks. While he watched the west gates open to Puget 22 Sound, Brian Pickering felt the boat jolt abruptly into reverse (although Pamina’s engine control

23 levers were in neutral) and heard Laurie Pickering ask him what he was doing. Dkt. No. 115 at 24 26–27. At the time, he was outside the pilothouse, and no one was at the helm of the ship or near 1 the engine controls, so he ran to the pilothouse and eventually turned off the engines. Id. at 27; 2 Dkt. No. 121-1 at 25–26, 30–31. The Pamina allided with multiple other vessels, causing damage 3 to them and to the Pamina. Dkt. No. 4 ¶ 6. The other boats eventually exited the locks, the Pamina

4 was towed to the Delta Marine facility, and multiple claims and this lawsuit were filed. Dkt. No. 5 115 at 41. 6 The lawsuit was filed by Petitioner Pamina, LLC, under the federal Limitation of Liability 7 Act (“LOLA”), 46 U.S.C. §§ 30501–30512. Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner amended its LOLA complaint 8 (Dkt. No. 4), and many parties filed answers, including Geico Marine Insurance Company, 9 Nicholas Leede, Federal Insurance Company, Anahit Hovhannisyan, Lake Washington Yacht 10 Charters LLC, and Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company (collectively “Claimants”). Dkt. Nos. 11 15, 19, 22–23. Petitioners/Third-Party Plaintiffs (the Pickerings; Pamina, LLC (as owner of the 12 Pamina); and Markel American Insurance Company (subrogee of the other petitioners)) then filed

13 a third-party complaint against Third-Party Defendants Delta Marine Industries, Inc.; N C 14 Machinery Company; Glendinning; and Dockmate. Dkt. Nos. 26 (original third-party complaint), 15 80 (amended third-party complaint). The amended third-party complaint lists, among other things, 16 five causes of action against Glendinning, for strict products liability, negligence, violations of 17 Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), indemnity and/or contribution, and declaratory 18 relief. Dkt. No. 80. Claimants also brought cross-claims for negligence and strict products liability 19 against Glendinning and Dockmate, among others. Dkt. Nos. 68, 69, 72. 20 Glendinning filed a motion requesting summary judgment on all claims raised against it 21 and that it be dismissed from this lawsuit with prejudice. Dkt. No. 114. Oppositions were filed 22 by Claimants Geico, Federal Insurance, and Leede (Dkt. No. 120); Co-Defendant Dockmate (Dkt.

23 No. 121); Cross-Claimant Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company (which insures one of the boats 24 that allided with the Pamina) (Dkt. No. 122); and Third-Party Plaintiff Markel (Dkt. No. 124). 1 The Court heard oral argument on the motion on June 3, 2024 (Dkt. No. 129), and Glendinning’s 2 motion is now ripe for resolution. 3 II. ANALYSIS

4 A. Legal Standards on Summary Judgment 5 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate “if the 6 movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 7 judgment as a matter of law.” A principal purpose of summary judgment “is to isolate and dispose 8 of factually unsupported claims[,]” so that “factually insufficient claims or defenses [can] be 9 isolated and prevented from going to trial with the attendant unwarranted consumption of public 10 and private resources.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24, 327 (1986). In resolving 11 a motion for summary judgment, the court considers “the threshold inquiry of determining whether 12 there is the need for a trial—whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that

13 properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor 14 of either party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). 15 B. Legal Standards as to LOLA Actions 16 With some exceptions not relevant here, LOLA allows the owner of a vessel to limit its 17 liability for any claim, debt, or liability caused by the vessel to the “value of the vessel and pending 18 freight.” 46 U.S.C.A. § 30523. 19 When a vessel owner asserts its claim to limited liability under [LOLA], a burden- shifting framework is employed to evaluate the shipowner’s eligibility for limited 20 liability. First, the party seeking to recover damages must demonstrate the shipowner’s liability for its loss, either by showing the unseaworthiness of the 21 vessel or the negligence of the vessel’s crew. …

22 Once the claimant establishes the particular cause of loss or damage, the vessel owner is entitled to limit its liability only if the vessel owner then successfully 23 demonstrates it was neither privy to, nor had knowledge of, the condition of unseaworthiness or the act of negligence that caused the accident. 24 1 Washington State Dept. of Transp. v. Sea Coast Towing Inc., 148 F. App’x 612, 613 (9th Cir. 2 2005). 3 C. The Parties Agree that the CPA Claim Against Glendinning May Be Dismissed.

4 Glendinning requested dismissal of the Third-Party Plaintiffs’ CPA claim against it, and 5 no party opposed that motion. See Dkt. No. 125 at 11. At oral argument, all counsel present 6 indicated that this claim should be dismissed. Therefore, the Court will grant Glendinning’s 7 motion to dismiss this claim. 8 D. There are Questions of Fact as to the Cause(s) of the Allision That Preclude Summary Judgment on All Other Claims. 9 Glendinning filed its motion for summary judgment after the parties conducted, in the 10 course of discovery, a coordinated inspection of the Glendinning and Dockmate systems removed 11 from the Pamina in February 2024. Dkt. No. 114 at 7–8. That inspection involved assembling 12 the Glendinning and Dockmate systems in an attempt to reenact conditions on the Pamina on the 13 day of the allision. Id. Glendinning contends that the inspection revealed that the Glendinning 14 equipment was working as it should be, but that a faulty Dockmate cable (with two wires shorted 15 together, when they should have been kept separate) caused it to malfunction, which caused the 16 allision. Id. 17 As support for this position, Glendinning cites a declaration from its expert, Danny Wells, 18 indicating Pamina’s system malfunctioned as a result of a faulty Dockmate cord. Dkt. No. 117. 19 According to Glendinning, it is not “causally responsible for the allision or the claims against it[,]” 20 and that “there was no product defect, no negligence, no deceptive act, and no fault generally” as 21 a result. Dkt. No. 114 at 16. 22 The parties that filed oppositions to Glendinning’s summary judgment motion contend that 23 there are still many open questions of fact about the cause of the allision, such that Glendinning 24 1 has not met its burden to show that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The 2 opposing parties note that discovery is still ongoing, and they request that Glendinning’s motion 3 be denied as premature and that discovery continue to proceed as scheduled.

4 Specifically, Claimants Geico, Federal Insurance, and Leede oppose Glendinning’s motion 5 on the grounds that even if Glendinning’s expert, Wells, is correct that the faulty Dockmate cord 6 is what caused the Glendinning unit to put the vessel’s engines in reverse, that fact alone would 7 not necessarily “absolve Glendinning of liability.” Dkt. No. 120 at 2. According to these 8 Claimants, although “[Wells’s] declaration supports a claim against Dockmate, it does not rule out 9 all other causes [or] contributing causes, nor does it satisfy the burden of proving no genuine 10 dispute of material fact for all claims against Glendinning.” Id. at 4. Claimants emphasize that 11 there is some evidence in the record that Glendinning and Dockmate made some effort to ensure 12 compatibility between their products (Dkt. No. 120-1 at 15–16), which suggests that “there is at

13 least a dispute of material fact about Glendinning’s involvement in determining the compatibility 14 of the products at issue.” Dkt. No. 120 at 5. Claimants also point to a declaration from Delta 15 Marine expert Christopher Heiberg suggesting that Glendinning’s product contained a design 16 defect that may have contributed to the allision at issue here. Id. (citing Dkt. No. 120-1 at 48–49). 17 Similarly, Dockmate’s opposition requests that Glendinning’s motion be denied under 18 Rule 56(d) because it has yet to complete discovery as to matters relevant to the claims in this 19 action, including the maintenance and repairs performed on the Pamina by N C Power and Delta 20 Marine, the removal of Dockmate and Glendinning products on the Pamina after the allision, the 21 functionality of the Glendinning products on the Pamina during the allision (specifically its neutral 22 safety switch), and the actual cause of the allision. Dkt. No. 121 at 25–26. Dockmate submitted

23 declarations indicating that the cause of the allision could not be conclusively determined from the 24 February 2024 inspection because the allision conditions could not be accurately replicated during 1 that inspection without modification. See Dkt. No. 121-3 ¶ 17, Dkt. No. 121-4 ¶¶ 9–12. Dockmate 2 also relies on the Heiberg declaration referenced above, which states that Glendinning’s product 3 should have contained a fail-safe that would have rendered the system inoperable when it was in

4 a fault state (due to the Dockmate cord), rather than acting upon the full-reverse signal resulting 5 from the fault state. See Dkt. No. 121-2. It is Heiberg’s opinion that the Glendinning product was 6 therefore defectively designed because it lacks adequate fail-safe measures. Id. ¶ 6(b). 7 Atlantic’s opposition also cites Heiberg’s declaration, and argues that Wells’s declaration 8 is insufficient to establish the cause of the allision because it is conclusory and fails to identify the 9 facts that support Wells’s conclusions as to the cause of the allision. Dkt. No. 122 at 9. Atlantic 10 also disputes Glendinning’s contention that the products liability claims brought against it must 11 fail because its product was designed and manufactured years before Dockmate’s product was 12 designed and added to the Pamina, by application of Washington’s statute of repose (Dkt. No. 114

13 at 12). See Dkt. No. 122 at 10–13. 14 In its reply, although Glendinning acknowledges that the Heiberg declaration suggests that 15 its product has a design defect (the lack of a fail-safe), it contends the declaration itself is 16 insufficient to establish the existence of the defect. Dkt. No. 125 at 5. That may be true, but at 17 this juncture, the declaration is sufficient to show that there is a dispute of fact that precludes 18 summary judgment for Glendinning and/or that further discovery could establish such a defect. 19 See Dkt. No. 121 at 25–27, Dkt. No. 121-1 ¶ 15. Glendinning has not yet been deposed, and 20 Dockmate posits that this deposition and others are needed in order to discover whether the 21 Glendinning product had any defects or malfunctions on the date of the allision. Dkt. No. 121 at 22 26–27, Dkt. No. 121-1 ¶ 14. Furthermore, the parties disagree about the extent to which the

23 February 2024 inspection of the Glendinning and Dockmate systems accurately replicated the 24 allision conditions, and those disputes cannot be resolved on the record before the Court. Compare 1 Dkt. No. 121-3 ¶¶ 6–14, 17 (describing the modifications made before the inspection, such that 2 the cause of the allision “could not be determined from the February 2024 inspection”) with Dkt. 3 No. 125 at 3 (Glendinning’s assertion that “the exact accident sequence alleged by Pickering was

4 replicated in the lab setting when the parts were reconnected”). 5 Because the parties that have opposed Glendinning’s motion have referenced a variety of 6 disputes of fact that would impact Glendinning’s liability and may be resolved via further 7 discovery, which is ongoing, the Court cannot find at this time that Glendinning is entitled to 8 summary judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 121-1 ¶¶ 13–15. Its motion is therefore 9 denied as premature, without prejudice to re-filing at a subsequent point in this proceeding. 10 III. CONCLUSION 11 Glendinning’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 114) is GRANTED IN PART and 12 DENIED IN PART. The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss the CPA claim against

13 Glendinning because it is unopposed, and DENIES the motion in all other respects. 14 Dated this 10th day of June, 2024. 15 A 16 Kymberly K. Evanson 17 United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24