Ardente v. Brunswick Corporation
Filing
14
OPINION AND ORDER denying 10 Motion to Dismiss. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 11/05/14. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
EVAN ARDENTE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
C.A. No. 14-258 S
)
BRUNSWICK CORPORATION d/b/a
)
SEA RAY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
___________________________________)
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Defendant Brunswick Corporation (“Defendant”) moves to dismiss
Plaintiff Evan Ardente’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.
(“Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 10.)
applies
and
precludes
(See Def.’s Mot. Dismiss
Defendant argues that admiralty law
Plaintiff’s
claims.
For
the
reasons
that
follow, the motion is DENIED.
I.
Background 1
In 1999, Plaintiff purchased a 1997 580 Super Sun Sport Sea Ray
yacht
1
(“yacht”)
from
its
original
owner.
In
November
of
2009,
The following facts are gleaned from Plaintiff’s Complaint.
See Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Comm., 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st
Cir. 2012). For more background on this case, the reader is directed
to Ardente v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 744 F.3d 815 (1st Cir. 2014)
and Ardente v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 906 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.R.I.
2012), decisions dealing with insurance coverage issues arising out
of this dispute.
Plaintiff discovered that the yacht had sustained water damage in
both its hull and deck.
Plaintiff claims that this damage renders
the yacht “unreasonably dangerous.”
(Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff, a Rhode Island domiciliary, has brought an action
against
Defendant,
jurisdiction.
a
Delaware
corporation,
invoking
diversity
Plaintiff asserts multiple claims for negligence and
strict liability under Rhode Island law, as well as a claim for
violation
of
Rhode
Island’s
Uniform
Trade
Practice
and
Consumer
Protection Act, see R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 6-13.1-1 to 6-13.1-29.
He
alleges that the damage to the yacht’s hull and deck was caused by
defective composite manufacturing techniques – specifically, the use
of balsa wood core material – that were used by Defendant during the
construction of the yacht.
According to Plaintiff, use of a solid
composite laminate in place of the balsa core would have eliminated
the defect.
intended
As a result, Plaintiff is unable to use the yacht in its
manner,
as
a
“high-speed
offshore
recreational
vessel.”
(Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 12.)
In
its
motion,
Plaintiff’s
Complaint
Application
of
Defendant
that
admiralty
argues
admiralty
law
law
precludes
that
it
applies
is
to
Plaintiff’s
clear
this
from
action.
claims,
the
argument goes, because Plaintiff seeks purely economic damages that
are not recoverable in tort under admiralty law.
that
the
claims
are
more
appropriately
2
grounded
Defendant asserts
in
contract
or
warranty,
but
that
the
statute
of
limitations
applicable
to
such
actions has expired.
II.
Legal Standard
In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure
12(b)(6),
the
court
must
construe
the
complaint
in
the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, taking all well-pled factual
allegations
reasonable
as
true
and
inferences.
giving
See
the
Schatz
plaintiff
v.
the
Republican
benefit
State
of
all
Leadership
Comm., 669 F.3d 50, 55-56 (1st Cir. 2012).
III. Discussion
In
its
Motion
Plaintiff’s
assertion
sufficiency
of
Rather,
to
Dismiss,
that
Plaintiff’s
Defendant’s
Defendant
diversity
jurisdiction
allegations
challenge
to
challenges
under
Plaintiff’s
exists
Rhode
neither
nor
Island
Complaint
is
the
law.
more
nuanced: it argues that, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s characterization
of his claims as state-law based, it is evident from the Complaint
that admiralty law applies to this action.
Admiralty law can be applied to a cause of action irrespective
of whether a Plaintiff elects to ground jurisdiction on admiralty or
some other basis.
See Carey v. Bahama Cruise Lines, 864 F.2d 201,
206-07 (1st Cir. 1988).
The availability of admiralty jurisdiction
and applicability of admiralty law are governed by the same test.
See Austin v. Unarco Indus., Inc., 705 F.2d 1, 6 n.1 (1st Cir. 1983).
3
This well-established test is comprised of a location (“situs”)
and connection (“nexus”) requirement:
A court applying the location test must determine whether
the tort occurred on navigable water or whether injury
suffered on land was caused by a vessel on navigable
water.
The connection test raises two issues. A court,
first, must assess the general features of the type of
incident involved[ ] to determine whether the incident has
a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce.
Second, a court must determine whether the general
character of the activity giving rise to the incident shows
a
substantial
relationship
to
traditional
maritime
activity.
Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S.
527, 534 (1995) (citations omitted) (quoting Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S.
358,
363-65
Florio
v.
(1990))
Olson,
129
(internal
F.3d
quotation
678,
680
marks
(1st
Cir.
omitted);
1997).
requirement is lacking, admiralty law cannot be applied.
129 F.3d at 680.
see
If
also
either
See Florio,
This Court’s analysis begins – and ends – with the
situs requirement.
Defendant insists that it is clear from Plaintiff’s Complaint
that the water damage occurred on navigable waters.
4-5.)
(See Def.’s Mot.
In opposition, Plaintiff states that other sources of water –
namely, pressurized hose water or rain water – caused the initial
water damage while the yacht was docked on land.
(See Pl.’s Opp’n 2,
7,
irrelevant
9,
ECF
No.
12.)
He
posits
that
it
is
whether
additional water penetrated the yacht while sailing because the focus
is on where the injury originally occurred.
(See id. 7-8 (citing
Abdelnour v. Bassett Custom Boatworks, Inc., 614 F. Supp. 2d 123, 127
4
(D.
Mass.
2009)).)
Defendant
claims
that
these
allegations
are
impossible to prove and that it is much more likely that the damage
occurred while the yacht was being used in its intended manner, as a
high-speed ocean cruiser on navigable waters.
(See Def.’s Reply 5,
ECF No. 13.)
Defendant’s argument that admiralty law applies must be rejected
at this juncture because Plaintiff’s Complaint is silent on where the
original damage occurred.
Although Plaintiff alleges that the yacht
was intended and used as a “high-speed offshore recreational vessel”
for “ocean cruising,” it is not clear from Plaintiff’s Complaint that
the water damage originally occurred while the yacht was in fact
“ocean cruising.”
(Pl.’s Compl. ¶¶ 12, 14-15.)
Plaintiff repeatedly
alleges that, “[a]s a result of the defect, water has penetrated into
the Yacht’s hull and deck and deteriorated the structural efficiency
of
the
Yacht.”
(Id.
¶¶
25,
33,
46;
see
also
id.
¶
8
(damage
“result[ed] from water intrusion from various locations throughout
the Yacht”); id. ¶ 10 (defect “allowed moisture to enter the hull and
deck laminates”).)
The Complaint does not specify where the yacht
was located when the water intrusion originally occurred.
Judge Gorton’s decision in Abdelnour is instructive.
case,
the
owner
constructed
discovered
vessel.
cracks
Abdelnour,
614
in
the
deck
F.
Supp.
2d
of
at
In that
his
125.
newly
After
launching the vessel, the owner noticed that the cracks had increased
in
both
size
and
number.
Id.
5
The
owner
brought
suit
in
Massachusetts state court, but the defendant removed to federal court
on admiralty jurisdiction grounds.
Id.
The plaintiff sought to
remand the case to state court, alleging that admiralty jurisdiction
was improper because the cracks occurred while the vessel was on
land.
Id.
At the outset, the court emphasized that the key inquiry
was where the injury originally occurred, explaining that “[t]he fact
that the cracks may have become worse while the boat was on navigable
water . . . is irrelevant . . . [;] the additional cracking does not
constitute a separate actionable tort.”
Id. at 127.
Unable to
resolve where the injury originally occurred, the court resolved the
dispute in the plaintiff’s favor.
Id.; cf. Isla Nena Air Servs.,
Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 380 F. Supp. 2d 74, 77-82 (D.P.R. 2005)
(agreeing
12(b)(6)
with
defendant
dismissal
that
stage
admiralty
because,
inter
law
applied
alia,
it
at
Rule
clear
was
the
from
plaintiff’s complaint that the injury occurred on navigable waters).
Like
the
court
in
Abdelnour,
this
Court
is
also
unable
to
decipher from the four corners of the Complaint whether the original
water damage – or, indeed, any water damage – occurred on navigable
waters.
On
the
face
of
the
Complaint,
the
“situs”
is
unknown.
Construing the Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff,
this Court must resolve this dispute in Plaintiff’s favor.
To be sure, it would not come as a shock to learn that the yacht
sustained the water damage while on navigable waters, and it may be,
as Defendant predicts, difficult for Plaintiff to prove otherwise.
6
However,
the
Defendant’s
procedural
posture
motion.
As
of
this
Defendant
case
compels
denial
acknowledges,
of
Plaintiff’s
explanation for the water damage is not ascertainable from the four
corners
of
the
Defendant’s.
Complaint
(see
Def.’s
Reply
5),
but
neither
is
This Court need not accept Plaintiff’s explanation in
order to reject Defendant’s.
At the pleading stage, all that counts
is the complaint, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in
favor
of
the
plaintiff.
Schatz,
669
F.3d
at
55.
Because
the
Complaint is silent on where the injury occurred, the Court would
have to draw an inference in Defendant’s favor in order to accept the
argument
that
the
injury
occurred
on
navigable
waters.
It
goes
without saying that the Court is not permitted to do so at this
stage. 2
Although
admiralty
argument
Defendant
law
down
applies,
the
injury occurred
on
road.
is
unable
Defendant
If
navigable
to
show
may
get
discovery
waters,
2
at
another
reveals
the
this
Court
juncture
crack
at
that
the
will
consider
that
this
original
the
Because this Court holds that it is not clear from Plaintiff’s
Complaint that the alleged injury to the yacht occurred on navigable
waters, the Court does not address the nexus requirement of the
Grubart test.
Furthermore, it is unnecessary to address whether
Plaintiff’s claims would be precluded under admiralty law, or whether
the statute of limitations has expired on any contract or warranty
claims.
7
applicability of admiralty law and the consequences that flow from
its application at a later stage in the proceeding. 3
IV.
Conclusion
Construing
the
Complaint
in
the
light
most
favorable
to
Plaintiff, it is not clear whether the injury to the yacht occurred
on navigable waters.
law
cannot
be
As a result, at the pleading stage, admiralty
applied
to
this
action.
Accordingly,
Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: November 5, 2014
3
Alternatively, Defendant requests the Court to stay its Motion
to Dismiss pending limited discovery.
(See Def.’s Reply 7.)
The
request is denied; the Court will address discovery at the Rule 16
conference.
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?