United States v. SS Ocean Eagle

47 F.R.D. 519, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13939
CourtDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico
DecidedSeptember 30, 1969
DocketCiv. Nos. 168, 212, 233, 346-68
StatusPublished

This text of 47 F.R.D. 519 (United States v. SS Ocean Eagle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. SS Ocean Eagle, 47 F.R.D. 519, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13939 (prd 1969).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

FERNANDEZ-BADILLO, District Judge.

This case came to be heard on the London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd.’s (hereinafter referred to as the “Association”) Motion to Quash the Service of Process and to Dismiss the Action for Lack of Jurisdiction over the person of the Association on the ground that the service was incomplete and invalid and on the further ground that it was not present or doing business within this district.

The record shows that service was made upon the Association through the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico under the Puerto Rican long-arm statute contained in Rule 4.7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and by serving it through the Association’s appointed representative in Puerto Rico, [520]*520William Munch, Inc., under Rule 4(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court being fully advised makes the following:

Findings of Fact

1. Defendant, the Association, is a non-profit company formed pursuant to the British Companies Acts of 1862 and 1867 and the Companies Act of 1948. Its principal object is to carry on the business of effecting and carrying out contracts of insurance upon ships or upon their machinery, etc., or against damage arising out of or in connection with the use of ships.

2. At the times material to events in these actions the Association provided insurance of four classes — -protecting and indemnity (Class 5), war risks (Class 7), freight, demurrage and defense (Class 8), and strikes (Class 9). The Association operates on the assessment plan. When members enter ships, or at the beginning of the fiscal year, an “advance call” is made of a stated number of shillings per ton of the contributing tonnage of each entered vessel, which members are required to pay, and as losses are incurred and paid by the Association further calls are made as needed.

3. The Association insured the owners of the SS Ocean Eagle by their entry of her in Class 5, the protecting and indemnity, as evidenced by a certificate of entry dated, London, 9 April, 1968, for the period from noon 20th February, 1968, GMT, for one year against such risks and upon such terms, conditions and limitations, as are stated in the Association’s rules of Class 5, protecting and indemnity, with minor exceptions as appear in the certificate. Such insurance was negotiated and arranged in London and the certificate aforesaid was issued in London and the rules aforesaid were promulgated in London.

4. The business of the Association is managed by the Committee of the Association saved to the extent to which it has appointed A. Bilbrough and Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Bilbrough”), to manage its affairs. Bilbrough is a British limited company. The Association and Bilbrough have their registered office at Walsingham House, Seething Lane, London, E.C. 3, and another office at 161 A High Street, Orpington, Kent.

5. All the business of the Association is managed from their offices referred to in the above paragraph. No member joins the Association elsewhere, and no ship is entered in any class of the Association elsewhere. Specifically, no insurance of any member or any ship is written or assured elsewhere.

6. One of the essential and fundamental parts of the Association’s business as an insurance company is the investigation, adjustment and payment of insurance claims wherever they may arise. The Association, to carry out the functions, appoints a representative in each of the major ports of the world. This appointment is made so that insureds, their masters and agents, and also the Association, may itself have the benefits of the representative’s advice and their local knowledge.

7. The Association appointed William Munch, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Munch”), a cargo surveyor and marine claim settling agent, as its representative in Puerto Rico through an exchange of letters, the first of which, dated June 11, 1959, reads in part as follows:

“Some little time ago it was suggested to us that you might be willing to act as our representative in San Juan * * * and we are writing you to inquire whether you would be willing to do so * * * ”
“Would it also be possible for you, should occasion arise, to help a master requiring assistance at St. Thomas, Virgin Islands? * * * we have no representative there and we wondered whether in case of need you could help a master at St. Thomas.”

[521]*521To that letter Munch replied on June 29, 1959, as follows:

“We received and thank you for your letter dated June 11th * * * however, if we can be of assistance to your goodselves we shall be glad to accept an appointment to act as your representative at San Juan, Puerto Rico. Our activities involve marine loss appraisals and settlements, also marine underwriting * * * ”

On July 2, 1959, the Association wrote to Munch acknowledging receipt of the acceptance:

“We thank you for your letter of the 29th ultimo and are glad to hear that you are willing to act as our representative at San Juan, Puerto Rico. We are sending you under separate cover a book of our rules and a list of entered steamships for 1959-1960 and also a copy of our Notes for the Guidance of our representatives.”

8. Under the arrangement with the Association Munch had, in respect to the protection and indemnity coverage (Class 5), authority to approve for the Association payments by the owners or agents; had discretion in determining which claims are referred to the Association in London and which are not; had authority or the duty to obtain advice from lawyers in doubtful eases; investigate claims; employ competent cargo and ship surveyors; hiring of independent doctors; compromise and settle claims on behalf of the Association; approve payments of incurred expenses for which legal liability of an association member exists; and within expressed instructions from the Association, authority to give or arrange on behalf of the Association any bail or security in legal proceedings.

9. In respect to freight, demurrage and defense coverage (Class 8), Munch had the duty to investigate cases; give or to obtain advice; and assist a member or master in any case. Under the scope of this coverage Munch reports the facts of the case to the Association. After the report is sent and instructions are received from the Association, Munch can, and has authority to, approve the taking or defending of proceedings.

10. In fulfilling his duties towards the Association and exercising the authority given Munch was actually engaged in at least eight instances of activity on behalf of the Association and its insured members as follows:

(a) On June 23, 1964, the owner of the SS Marine Coaster cabled Munch telling it that the vessel was entered in London, that Bilbrough was manager and requested an investigation into a claimed damage. Munch made the investigation, reported the results of it to the owners of the vessel and billed the owners who paid Munch.

(b) In October, 1964, the SS Harden-berg discharged at San Juan a shipment of whiskey in partially damaged condition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

International Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court, 1945)
McGee v. International Life Insurance
355 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 1957)
Boryk v. Aircraft Co.
341 F.2d 666 (Second Circuit, 1965)
McClanahan v. Trans-America Insurance
307 P.2d 1023 (California Court of Appeal, 1957)
Martinez v. Karageorgis
235 F. Supp. 1012 (D. Puerto Rico, 1963)
Allegue v. Gulf & South American S. S. Co.
103 F. Supp. 34 (S.D. New York, 1952)
Bomze v. Nardis Sportswear, Inc.
165 F.2d 33 (Second Circuit, 1948)
Executive Air Services, Inc. v. Beech Aircraft Corporation
254 F. Supp. 415 (D. Puerto Rico, 1966)
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. M/V John E. Coon
207 F. Supp. 45 (E.D. Louisiana, 1962)
Henriques v. Gauthiod Marine Insurance
205 A.D. 8 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1923)
Commonwealth Oil Refining Co. v. Houdry Process Corp.
185 F. Supp. 485 (D. Puerto Rico, 1960)
Kane v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
267 F. Supp. 709 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 F.R.D. 519, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ss-ocean-eagle-prd-1969.