Lex Blog - Maritime Law

• The FMC’s Latest Ruling on Detention Charges: What it Means for Ocean Carriers
• Liskow Goes Beneath the Surface of Maritime Law: Get to Know the Authors
• Majority Rules: Ninth Circuit Joins in Treating Contribution and Indemnity Claims as Separate in Limitation Proceedings
• EPA Issues Much-Anticipated Final Rule Establishing National Standards of Performance for Vessel Incidental Discharges
• USCG Updates Guidance on Safer Seas Act Camera Requirements
• Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Jones Act Claims Based on Forum Non Conveniens
• Fifth Circuit Upholds Coast Guard Determination that Dredging Barge with Foreign-Made Crane May Operate in the United States
• “Juries cannot simply pick a number and put it in the blank.” – Texas Supreme Court Remands Case Involving $15 Million Jury Award for Noneconomic Damages Where Award was Unsupported and Arguments to the Jury Unsubstantiated
• MADE IN AMERICA: U.S.-Built Offshore Wind Substation and Support Vessels Start to Set Sail for Federal Waters
• Third Circuit Restores Rule B Attachment Based On Breach of Contract Claim Under English Law, Implied Indemnity Claim Not Enough
• Maritime Law: Key Legal Issues in Fires at Sea, Cargo Damage, Salvage, and More
• Oil Spill Liability: OPA 90 v. the IMO’S CLC
• USCG Issues First Guidance on Safer Seas Act Camera Requirements
• EPA’s Proposed Rule on Vessel Incidental Discharges Brings VIDA One Step Closer to Full Implementation
• Corporate Protection Pipeline: Court Denies Economic Damages Based on Robins Dry Dock
• When It Comes to Pilot Errors: State Statutes Preempt General Maritime Law
• Louisiana International Terminal Project Receives Federal Funding Boost
• USCG Updates Guidance on Safer Seas Act Compliance, Continuing to Show Strict Interpretation and Enforcement of Its Requirements
• State Law Taxation of Capital Construction Funds
• Choice-of-Law Provisions in Marine Insurance Contracts Upheld by the Supreme Court
• An Introduction to Maritime Law Presumptions
• Factual & Legal Leaps Fall Flat: The Fifth Circuit Affirms that Plaintiff Was Not a Jones Act Seaman