Casualty

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the district court correctly applied the plausibility standard of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), to a maritime complaint seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 30511 et seq. 

In Bensch, the petitioner (the boat owner) argued that the plausibility standard for assessing the sufficiency of a complaint that applies in civil litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) was inapplicable to such a maritime exoneration/limitation complaint. Bensch was essentially arguing that, in maritime cases to which Rule F of the Supplemental Rules of Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions applies, “a distinctive customary admiralty standard of pleading governs, distinct from the Rule 8(a) standard as currently understood.” The court noted that the petitioner’s argument on that issue raised a question of first impression in the Second Circuit and “one of general importance to the admiralty bar and the district courts.” The court further noted that “the language of [Supplemental] Rule F(2), which requires a recitation of ‘the facts on the basis of which the right to limit liability is asserted’, is fully compatible with the emphasis on pleading concrete facts that was announced in Twombly and Iqbal.” Accordingly, the Second Circuit determined that Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies in maritime cases under Supplemental Rule A(2). Therefore, a vessel owner petitioning for exoneration from or limitation of liability must set forth sufficient facts to render his claim of lack of “privity and knowledge” plausible as that phrase is defined in Iqbal—a vessel owner may not “proceed on fewer factual allegations than are required of a civil complaint under Rule 8(a).” 
 

^{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}