|
|
Shiprepairer's Legal Liability & Government Contracting
Atlantic Yacht Basin, Inc. v. Yacht STATION BREAK, in rem, Civil
Action No. 2:00cv145, Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division.
Represented yacht owner in defense of suit by yacht repair yard for unpaid
repair bills on the grounds of negligent repair and excessive charges
where engine failed upon start-up following winterization by repair yard.
Defended against taxation of arrest costs on grounds that arrest was unnecessary
and unreasonable. The trial court ruled against the yacht owner on all
points.
Eastern Technical Enterprises, Inc. v. United States of America,
Civil Action No. 2:95cv138, Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division.
Represented ETE, government contractor, in action to recover costs for
rebuilding Auxiliary No. 1 Port Diesel Generator (MaK 6M282AK) which failed
during sea trials following performance of contract to re-activate and
de-activate the M/V CAPE TEXAS. After a seven day bench trial, the returned
a judgment in favor of the Government.
Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Bailey Refrigeration Co.,
Civil Action No. 88-062-N, Eastern District of Virginia - Norfolk Division
Defended Bailey Refrigeration Co. in a government contract dispute. NORSHIPCO,
the primary contractor, sought damages from Bailey for its refusal to
perform a subcontract in which an erroneous bid had been submitted. Bailey's
estimator had calculated figures based on one refrigeration unit and neglected
to extend his estimates by the number of units in the contract. This bid
was one third the price for which Bailey was willing to perform and less
than half any competing bid. We defended on the theory that NORSHIPCO
could not reasonably have relied on this unreasonably low bid. The case
was tried in August, 1988, before the Honorable Robert A. Doumar who ruled
in Bailey's favor. The case was not appealed.
F/V Capt. Wool, Inc. v. Wagner Maritime, Inc., 1996 WL 895461,
1997 A.M.C. 1157 (E.D.Va. 1996).
Plaintiff shipowner brought an action for damages against a shipyard when
its engine froze and was damaged while hauled. Shipyard impleaded another
contractor, alleging that it had contracted directly with Owner to winterize.
The Court refused to enter a proposed order dismissing the third party
complaint, holding that under Rule 14(c) a defendant can tender an unwilling
third party defendant directly to an unwilling plaintiff, notwithstanding
the absence of any allegation of fault by the plaintiff against the third
party defendant. The case was subsequently settled on favorable terms
with no contribution by the third party defendant.
|
