Federal Policy Remains that Arbitration Agreements and their Broad Construction are Favored

Plaintiff filed a seaman’s complaint alleging that he incurred injury while working as a crew member on one of the defendant’s vessels because the defendant negligently assigned plaintiff to activities that defendant knew or should have known would result in injury. Defendant filed a motion to stay litigation in favor of arbitration based on the Claims Arbitration Agreement that plaintiff had previously signed. When defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s lawsuit, attaching the arbitration agreement to its motion, plaintiff admitted that the arbitration agreement existed and, if applicable, would compel arbitration. Plaintiff’s opposition was that his claim was outside of the scope of the arbitration agreement because it covered only an injury to his right shoulder, while the claim in his lawsuit was brought for injuries to both shoulders and therefore was not a “known claim for a specific injury” at the time plaintiff entered into the arbitration agreement. Although the court acknowledged that investigation may ultimately reveal that plaintiff was bringing a claim for a new, distinct injury, the court found plaintiff’s pleadings insufficient to establish that fact. The court highlighted the federal policy favoring arbitration and the broad construction of the scope of arbitration agreements as it granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and directed the parties to proceed with arbitration in accordance with the parties’ arbitration agreement.

Macrury v. American Steamship Company, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106704 (USDC EDMI, July 11, 2017).

Arbitration Provision in Salvage Contract Binding

A vessel owner, Farnsworth, brought action against a towboat company, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the towboat company from enforcing the arbitration clause in their salvage contract and a declaration that the salvage contract was unenforceable because the vessel owner entered into it under duress. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied a motion for injunctive relief, stayed the case pending arbitration, and later confirmed the arbitration award to the towboat company.  Farnsworth appealed to the U.S. First Circuit.

On the evening of July 28, 2012, Farnsworth was anchoring his boat, the M/Y AURORA, in the Weepecket Island anchorage in Buzzards Bay. The boat’s depth sounder malfunctioned and Farnsworth inadvertently allowed the vessel to drift aground. Farnsworth requested a tow over his marine radio, and TNS’s vessel, the NORTHPOINT, responded to his call. Farnsworth also made contact with the Coast Guard, which instructed him that if he had any problems, he should “make the appropriate hail” and the Coast Guard would assist.

On appeal, the court found that the merits at issue in this case turned on whether the contract which ensued was a towage or a salvage contract because under maritime law, towage is compensated at a contract rate, whereas a salvor is entitled to an equitable award equal to a portion of the value of the salvaged property.  The parties differed significantly over whether Farnsworth’s vessel required towage or salvage, and their versions of the facts reflected the wide gap, though Farnsworth did sign a “salvage contract,” the terms of which he subsequently disputed and claimed he was coerced into signing.  Subsequently, while Farnsworth threatened litigation and denied the towboat company’s salvage claim, the towboat company invoiced Farnswroth for payment of the company’s estimate of a fair salvage award given the value of the salvaged property and principles of salvage law. Farnsworth did not pay the invoice, and the towboat company demanded arbitration.

While arbitration was pending, Farnsworth filed his action in federal court.  On appeal, the court found no proper basis on which to refuse to confirm the arbitration panel’s award, writing that “Farnsworth’s belated attempt to press his duress claim in another forum by advancing allegations that he should have made when he sought to enjoin the arbitration provided no reason not to confirm.”  Accordingly, the district court’s judgment was affirmed.

Farnsworth v. Towboat Nantucket Sound, Inc.