Effects of Bringing a Claim under 9(h)

No Jury

Perhaps the most notable effect of pleading with an admiralty designation is that there is no right to trial by jury.  Although Rule 38(a) states that “[t]he right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States shall be preserved to the parties inviolate”; section (e) of the rule states “[t]hese rules shall not be construed to create a right to trial by jury of the issues in an admiralty or maritime claim within the meaning of Rule 9(h).”[27] Therefore, a Complaint filed with a 9(h) designation will proceed as a bench proceeding before the judge of the court and any subsequent request by the defendant for a jury trial will be denied.  However, if a maritime action is brought in federal court pursuant to the saving to suitor's clause[28] under the court’s diversity jurisdiction, without an Admiralty designation, and a demand for jury trial is made, the case will be tried to a jury under the provisions of Rule 38(a) and the Seventh Amendment. 

The saving to suitor’s clause preserves the right for a person injured in a maritime tort to pursue their claim and the allowable common law remedies in state court.[29]  Regardless of whether the claim is pursued in state court or in federal court, under diversity of citizenship, the substance of general maritime law will be applied to the claim.[30]

Defendant’s Right to Designate Responsible Third Party

While the seaman’s choice to designate a claim in admiralty under Rule 9(h) provides certain benefits to the seaman, it also gives rise to certain rights for the defendant.  Possibly the most important right allowed to defendants in admiralty cases is the right to designate a third-party defendant under Rule 14(c), subjecting that party to direct liability to the plaintiff.[31] 

Rule 14(c) allows the defendant in an admiralty claim to join a third party in the suit and, as such, demand judgment against that third party in favor of the plaintiff for any liability owed to the plaintiff.  This action by the defendant forces the third-party defendant to fully defend the claim and the matter then proceeds against all defendants, as if the plaintiff had commenced the action against all parties jointly. 

This allowance stems from the broad rules applied to third-party joinder permitted in the admiralty practice prior to the 1966 amendments.  The effect of this rule is significant because of the strict adherence to the rule of comparative allocation of fault as followed in admiralty claims.  In the event of a Plaintiff bringing a claim against a vessel and not the potentially liable defendant companies, or against one potential defendant and not another, Rule 14(c) provides an avenue for the named defendant to bring all potentially liable entities before the court, thus allowing for the proper assessment of proportionate fault. 

The provisions of Rule 14(c) are only triggered by the pleading of a 9(h) designation by the Plaintiff, unless the cause of action is one that is only cognizable in admiralty.  The third-party defendant need not be liable to Plaintiff under a maritime cause of action to be brought into the matter under a 14(c) designation.  For instance, the third-party defendant may be a manufacturer liable to the Plaintiff under a products liability theory but may still be named and placed before the court for the purpose of allocating proportionate fault. 

Prejudgment Interest

Failure to designate a Complaint as a claim in admiralty can affect the final monetary award received by a plaintiff.  As a rule, prejudgment interest is allowed and awarded in admiralty claims.  The same is not true for cases brought on the law side of the docket.  This is particularly important for Jones Act seamen bringing claims under the terms of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.  § 688 and the General Maritime Law doctrines of unseaworthiness and for maintenance and cure.  If the Jones Act claim is not pursued in admiralty but is pursued on the law docket to allow the plaintiff a jury trial, he will not be entitled to receive prejudgment interest on the Jones Act award, however to the extent that the recoveries can be apportioned to the separate causes of action, the court may have the discretion to award interest on the amount recovered under the General Maritime Law. 

Choice of Forum

The choice of forums and whether to file with an admiralty designation for your Jones Act and General Maritime claim may very well be the two most important decisions that will be made in your case.  These decisions will be the result of research performed by your attorney, taking into consideration jurisdictional constraints, the experience of the jurists in Admiralty and Maritime matters, the volume of the court’s docket, relative time of the trial track, and potential juror demographics.  You should rely heavily on your attorney’s experience and knowledge when making these decisions and defer to his expertise in these areas.  These decisions should not be made lightly as they will affect the entire litigation process. 

Once again readers are urged to consult with an experienced maritime lawyer immediately following an injury or as soon as possible.  Our book is not intended as a comprehensive text on Jones Act and maritime injuries.  Its purpose is to familiarize workers and those who endeavor to help them about the most relevant and practiced aspects of maritime law.  There is so much more to know about this subject and then comes the application of the law to the particular facts of each injury.  Maritime law changes almost daily when new court decisions are handed down.  It is the job of the maritime lawyer to know the law and keep up with all the changes.  We hope that our book has made this point clear so that the reader will not make a very costly mistake like so many have before.