The Supreme Court just denied a cert petition in the Lee v. Astoria Generating Co. case. I had earlier posted on the decision of the New York appeals court here.
From my earlier post, this is the issue below:
The New York Appellate Division recently issued a decision interpreting the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LWHCA), particularly 33 U.S.C. s. 905(b) and the preemptive effect of that act on state law claims. The decision is here and the case is entitled Lee v. Astoria Generating Company, L.P.
The facts are pretty straightforward. The defendant owned a power generation facility which was comprised of four barges that collectively housed several gas turbines used to create electricity. The barges floated but were only moved for maintenance once a decade. The plaintiff was injured while working on one of the barges.
Suit was brought in state court for the injuries. At issue in the decision was whether the barge was a "vessel" under the LWHCA, which would thereby make the remedies of the LHWCA the exclusive remedies for the plaintiff; and, whether the LHWCA preempted the state law claims for negligence.
The court found that although the barge was moored, it was not moored permanently as it had moved for maintenance. As such, it did not lose its status as a vessel under the LHWCA. Because the barge was a "vessel," the court then found that the LHWCA did preempt state law negligence claims.
SCOTUSBLOG has the petition and other briefs here. The questions presented were: Whether the lower court misapplied Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005), to find that a floating power plant constituted a "vessel in navigation"; and 2) whether the lower court erred by finding that petitioner's proposed state-law tort claims were within the maritime jurisdiction and by dismissing said claims on the basis that they were preempted by Section 905(b) of the Longshore and Harborworker Compensation Act.
Looks like those questions will have to wait for another day.
Comments