Admiralty – Jones Act Claims – Waiver

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff seaman has filed personal injury claims and others for “maintenance and cure” against a defendant fishing company under the Jones Act and general maritime law, I hold that the defendant must be granted summary judgment, as evidence shows that the plaintiff validly waived such claims in accepting a settlement.

Waiver Issue

“Here there can be no genuine issue of fact whether [plaintiff Jose] Pereira signed the release ‘freely, without deception or coercion, and … with full understanding of his rights.’ … The transcript of the meeting at which Pereira signed the release establishes that [insurance company attorney Gordon] Sykes explained to Pereira the legal and practical consequences of the release, including specifically that it would bar future claims by Pereira against the released parties. Sykes summarized the claims Pereira would have under the Jones Act and the doctrine of unseaworthiness. It is true, as Pereira now objects, that the summary was not done with textbook precision, but it certainly conveyed to Pereira that he was surrendering potentially valuable claims in exchange for the settlement amount. There is really no doubt of that. Contrariwise, it is highly doubtful that more precise description of legal concepts — such as the quantum of proof necessary to establish negligence in a Jones Act case — would have added materially to Pereira’s understanding of the significance of the release he was signing.

“Despite the plaintiff’s present assertion to the contrary, Sykes specifically advised Pereira that he was also surrendering claims for future payments for maintenance and/or cure … and emphasized as well that he was generally surrendering the right to seek compensation for all future claims. Importantly, Sykes told Pereira that he was also surrendering the right to have his claims determined, and any damages set, by a jury of people like himself. Throughout, Pereira indicated, without uncertainty or equivocation, that he understood what he was giving in exchange for the settlement payment. Pereira’s deposition testimony confirms these conclusions.

“The procedure was also entirely free from any ‘deception or coercion.’ Sykes repeatedly asked Pereira if he wanted to seek legal, or even medical, advice before committing to the settlement. Pereira repeatedly said he did not want to do so. Mrs. Pereira participated with her husband, and Sykes even asked her if she had any questions about what was transpiring.

“Finally, the settlement amount itself was the product of genuine negotiation between [insurance company representative Neil] Stoddard and Pereira. The evidence indicated that the injury healed to the point where the doctor cleared Pereira for ‘full active labor.’ Where there was no evidence that Pereira suffered permanent impairment to any significant degree or any level of disability, and where his total medical expenses were about $1,350, a settlement in the sum of $10,000 was not inadequate to support the release, as a matter of law.

“In sum, the record on the present motion shows clearly that the plaintiff knew what he was doing in accepting the settlement amount in exchange for a release of all claims against the defendant. On the evidence presented, no reasonable jury could conclude otherwise.

“The law could preclude a seaman from giving a release at all, and require that all claims be tried. Or it could recognize only those releases given by seamen who are actually advised by counsel. It does neither. The law is solicitous of seamen, but it does not prevent them from entering into informed and voluntary settlements and from giving binding releases in connection therewith. In this case, there can be no genuine dispute that that is what Pereira did. He may now wish he had made a different choice, but second thoughts are not a reason for undoing an agreement that was proper and valid when the parties concluded it.

“Pereira’s release must be held binding. That being so, the defendant is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law.”

“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby granted.”

Pereira v. Boa Viagem Fishing Corporation (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-151-98) (6 pages) (O’Toole, J.) (Civil Action No. 97-11109-GAO).