Laches, Not The Presumptive Statute Of Limitations, Determines Whether Injured Seaman Has Brought Timely Claim For Maintenance and Cure
April, 2007
Huseman v. Icicle Seafoods, 471 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2006)
The issue presented on appeal to the Ninth Circuit was whether theories of equitable tolling or equitable estoppel are available to Jones Act seamen so that an injured seaman could bring a claim for maintenance and cure more than three years after the alleged injury. At issue in this case were the competing doctrines, and interaction of laches and estoppel, combined with the text and purpose of the Jones Act.
Facts
Plaintiff Huseman injured his shoulder while working as a seafood processor aboard Icicle’s vessel. Huseman began receiving benefits under the Alaska Worker’s Compensation scheme. Documents sent to him by the Worker’s Compensation Commission included the possible availability of benefits under federal law. Three and one-half years after the injury, Huseman filed a claim in federal court alleging maritime claims of negligence under the Jones Act, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure. There was no evidence that Icicle had misled or failed to respond to Huseman regarding the applicability of federal law.
Icicle moved for summary judgment, arguing that Huseman’s claims were barred as untimely. The trial court agreed and granted Icicle’s motion. Specifically, the court found no evidence that Icicle misled Huseman; that Huseman made no effort to ascertain whether he had additional remedies; and that Huseman could not rely on Icicle’s “Terms of Employment” literature, given to Huseman at the time of hire, to justify filing suit outside the statute of limitations. Huseman’s Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims were therefore time-barred. As to maintenance and cure, while acknowledging conflicting case law on whether laches or the analogous statute of limitations determined the timeliness of a claim, the court skirted the issue, holding that the expiration of the analogous statute of limitations brings a presumption that laches applies, and that, absent good reason for an extension, the claim is barred. Because Huseman’s claim for extension was premised on ignorance of the law and a failure to inquire, the court found the delay in filing unreasonable while also noting that Icicle would be prejudiced. The maintenance and cure claim was therefore time barred under laches.
Analysis
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment on Huseman’s Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness claims. Huseman’s invocation of equitable tolling and/or equitable estoppel was unwarranted given (1) his failure to exercise due diligence in pursuing his federal claims; (2) his unfounded reliance on a disputed paragraph in Icicle’s “Terms of Employment” document; and (3) the absence of any untoward conduct or evidence that Icicle misled Huseman.
Equitable tolling is premised upon “excusable delay.” Equitable estoppel is premised upon a party preventing another from filing a claim and/or that individual’s reasonable reliance on the other party’s conduct. Resort to either theory was not justified in this case. Specifically, the court found there was no overreaching by the shipowner taking advantage of an isolated seaman. Huseman had no specific evidence that he was misled, either by the “Terms of Employment” or by any other express representation or conduct on the part of Icicle. The court also found that Huseman had ample opportunity to inquire about possible federal benefits and/or federal claims.
As to Huseman’s claim for maintenance and cure, the Ninth Circuit expressly held that the doctrine of laches would apply. Laches is an equitable affirmative defense available for actions that do not have a specific applicable statute of limitations, such as Huseman’s maintenance and cure claim. The affirmative defense of laches “requires proof of (1) lack of diligence by the party against whom the defense is asserted, and (2) prejudice to the party asserting defense.” In other words, and opposed to the equitable doctrines above, the defendant bears the burden of proof as to plaintiff’s lack of diligence and resulting prejudice. While no specific period of time for the reasonableness of the delay will be established, there must be “particularized evidence to support the assertion that the time lag between knowledge of the potential action and the filing of the action was unreasonable in length.”
The court went on to note that Huseman filed suit less than one month after learning of his remedies and just under six months beyond the statute of limitations. The court stated it was mere speculation that this brief delay was unreasonable. Diligence is to be assessed in the context of the maintenance and cure claim, which has no statute of limitations and is intended to provide coverage for the seaman.
As to the element of prejudice to Icicle, “the most important aspect of a laches determination” which was to be balanced against Huseman’ short delay the court noted as follows. First, Icicle had ample incentive to investigate Huseman’s accident, knowing that Huseman could opt out of Alaska Worker’s Compensation, and into the federal scheme, at any time. Second, Icicle had a definite interest in investigating the accident to prevent similar injuries to other employees. Third, the court found no prejudice flowing from possible unavailability of witnesses, given that the claim was filed only five months outside the presumptive statute of limitations period. The Ninth Circuit remanded the cause for more particularized findings on whether prejudice to Icicle resulted from Huseman’s delay in filing.
Learning Point
Of the various remedies available to injured seamen, maintenance and cure appears to be the remedy courts are most willing and apt to preserve, whatever the facts. Because maintenance and cure is available irrespective of fault/negligence, and because of the acknowledged purpose of the remedy, to protect seaman who by their employment are subject to a variety of perils, courts are often more liberal in the application of laches (and/or an analogous statute of limitations) in evaluating claims for maintenance and cure.
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2007v1) 2007 Volume 1 Table of Contents
