Court: District Court, D. Connecticut; February 13, 2013; Federal District Court
Plaintiffs Cliff Crowley, owner of the yacht “Moondance,” and New Hampshire Insurance Company filed an admiralty and maritime action against defendants Angelo Costa and Charles J. Costa, trustee of the Angelo P. Costa Revocable Trust. Crowley sought a declaratory judgment on four counts concerning his liability for damage to Costa’s pier, which resulted when the Moondance broke from its mooring during a storm. Costa counterclaimed, alleging that Crowley’s actions constituted negligence, strict liability, and a breach of federal safety regulations, leading to the damage.
The plaintiffs' complaint included four counts: seeking exoneration from liability, declaratory judgment on the pier's value, and limitation of liability. The court dismissed the first and fourth counts and converted the second and third counts into affirmative defenses against Costa's counterclaim. Consequently, the case primarily centered on Costa's counterclaim for pier damage. The plaintiffs raised three affirmative defenses: failure to state a cause of action, lack of responsibility for the loss, and limitation of liability to the Moondance's value.
A bench trial occurred on specified dates in 2012, with oral arguments on January 15, 2013. The incident in question occurred on October 25, 2008, when the Moondance struck Costa's pier at 98 Grovers Avenue, Bridgeport, CT. The Moondance is a 44-foot sailboat, while Costa’s pier, measuring 320 feet, was built in 1957 without proper permits for its length. Costa had invested approximately $50,000 in repairs from 1976 to 1996 and had previously employed a worker for upkeep, though no major structural timbers were replaced.
Crowley, a Black Rock Yacht Club member since 1994, purchased the Moondance in 2005 and typically moored it in Black Rock Harbor from April to November, storing it during winter at Captain Cove Seaport or Jamestown Boatyard. In 2008, the Moondance's mooring location was determined by Ed Billings, the club manager, placing it east of the channel opposite the Black Rock Yacht Club dock.
In 2008, Mr. Billings inspected the moorings of the Moondance, which was secured by an 800-pound mushroom anchor and chain links to a mooring ball. Although the moorings generally complied with the City of Bridgeport's Harbormaster Mooring Rules, the top and bottom chains did not meet the minimum requirement of three-quarter inch for a boat of its size; the bottom chain was five-eighths inch, as Mr. Billings believed a heavier chain would hinder proper anchoring. Two pennants connected the boat to the mooring ball, and Mr. Billings recommended that Crowley replace certain mooring components. Crowley purchased new pennants, shackles, and chain, which are typically replaced every two to three years, and noted no unusual wear during the 2008 season.
On October 19, 2008, Crowley sailed the Moondance and then left for a six-day business trip without monitoring the weather or informing Mr. Billings of his absence. Crowley usually relies on others to check on the boat when he's away, but he did not communicate any concerns about the impending storm. After returning on October 25, Crowley learned from his wife that the Moondance had broken free from its mooring due to chafing through the chocks caused by the boat's movement. The Moondance subsequently collided with Costa’s pier, causing significant damage, including the destruction of a 90 to 100-foot section of the pier and damage to the pilings and decking.
Crowley visited Costa's property on October 26 to inspect his boat but failed to remove the sail beforehand and lacked chafing gear after the boat collided with the dock. In contrast, the Moondance had chafing gear on its pennants before the storm on October 25. Crowley hired Norwalk Marine Contractors to lift his boat out of the water, but the crane barge dropped it on a shoal, grounding it. Despite several attempts to dislodge it, the yacht club’s workboat ultimately freed the vessel.
Black Rock Harbor is particularly vulnerable to south-southeast winds due to the absence of a breakwater, allowing waves to build from Long Island to Bridgeport. The National Weather Service had forecasted a storm for the weekend starting October 22, warning of potential gale force winds (39 to 54 mph). The forecasts were accessible through various media, and Chris Ruskay was aware of the impending storm. By October 24, forecasts indicated increasing winds and issued a gale watch for Saturday afternoon and evening, later downgraded to a small craft advisory.
On October 25, winds increased but remained under 20 mph in the morning. By noon, winds shifted to south-southeast, exceeding 20 mph and sustaining speeds over that level for 10 to 12 hours. Wind speeds reached 36 mph with gusts of 44 mph by 6:00 p.m., maintaining similar conditions through the evening. Wave heights remained below one foot in the morning but peaked at three and a half feet during the storm's height. The court favored the plaintiffs’ weather expert, Mr. Bevens, over the defendant’s data from Sikorsky Airport, citing inaccuracies in the latter due to environmental obstructions.
Mr. Bevens’ testimony indicated that gale winds were already present when the National Weather Service issued a gale warning on Saturday. Mr. Horn testified that weather predictions vary in accuracy depending on the situation, noting that forecasts can be refined closer to an event but may also be more accurate days in advance. Historical data shows October weather is highly variable, with Mr. Ruskay stating that he has encountered significant issues with fall storms over his 45 years in the field. Mr. Scinto corroborated that October presents challenging weather patterns, while Mr. Bevens added that some years experience calm conditions and others severe storms. Winds from the north are less concerning for Black Rock Harbor due to its protective geography, whereas southern winds pose a greater risk of larger waves.
The storm on October 25, 2008, was deemed not unique, with Mr. Horn referencing similar storms in 1996 and 2006. Boat owners at Black Rock Yacht Club typically secure their vessels and prepare for severe weather by checking gear and, if necessary, relocating boats to safer locations.
The condition of the pier was assessed as deteriorated, with pilings showing signs of hourglassing, cracking, and marine growth, significantly reducing their diameter from 10 inches to between 6 and 8 inches. The creosote treatment had leached out, and corroded bolts were noted. These issues, including cracks and barnacle growth, have diminished the pilings’ useful life. Originally constructed in 1957, the dock had its pilings replaced in 1987 and was determined to have a useful life of 32 years. At the time of the incident, the dock was approximately two-thirds depreciated, although it had not lost all value.
Four proposals for repairing Costa's dock following an allision were presented, along with a marine surveyor's estimate.
1. **Connecticut Pile Driving, L.L.C.** proposed to repair 100 feet of the pier, install 28 new piles, and repair the handrail, with a total cost estimated at **$42,300**.
2. **Norwalk Marine** suggested replacing 25 feet of the wooden jetty, installing 20 new piles, and repairing 65 feet of decking and handrails, with a total estimated cost of **$75,600**, excluding permit and mobilization costs. A later breakdown indicated repairing 65 feet of the dock would cost between **$40,000 and $45,000**, and repairing the timber groin an additional **$15,000 to $25,000**. Thus, the total repair cost under this estimate is approximated at **$100,000**.
3. **G. C Marine Services** proposed a comprehensive repair plan, including the removal of damaged sections, installation of 26 new timber piles, and complete replacement of about 90 feet of the pier, with an estimated cost of **$154,760**, not including mobilization.
4. **Blakeslee, Arpaia, Chapman, Inc.** provided the highest estimate of **$351,540**, covering extensive repairs and mobilization. Adjusting for just the damaged sections, the effective cost was recalculated to **$245,516** after excluding costs related to undamaged areas and non-essential repairs.
5. **Stafford Marine Service, LLC** also provided cost estimates as part of an insurance survey.
Overall, the proposals varied significantly in scope and cost, with the lowest estimate at **$42,300** and the highest at **$351,540**.
Stafford estimated the cost of removing the entire dock to range from $235,000 to $300,000, based on new construction parameters, including installing the dock on 15-foot centers and using larger pilings. Replacement costs for a 200-foot dock were estimated at $165,000, including electrical and water service ($15,000) and new breakwater ($30,000), with disposal and removal fees around $25,000. Since only 100 feet of the dock was damaged, repair costs would be $82,500, leading to a total repair estimate of $152,500, which could increase to $217,500 due to potential "unknowns." Mobilization costs were not initially included by Norwalk Marine and G. C Marine in their estimates. After evaluating various estimates, the court determined mobilization should cost $25,000, resulting in total repair costs of $125,000 for Norwalk Marine and $179,760 for G. C Marine, while Blakeslee's estimate would be $220,516. The court averaged the detailed estimates from G. C Marine, Stafford, and Blakeslee, concluding the reasonable repair cost for the damaged dock is $186,000.
Mr. Costa obtained a permit for dock reconstruction, which allows the retention of specific shoreline structures and the installation of a new dock with specified dimensions. In legal conclusions, Costa claims that damage to his pier was due to Crowley’s negligence, invoking maritime law principles of negligence, which include duty, breach, and causation. Under the Louisiana Rule, a moored vessel that breaks free is presumed at fault, placing the burden on the vessel's owner to prove non-negligence. The court will evaluate the potential defenses available to Crowley against this presumption.
The stationary object, a pier, was primarily at fault in the allision incident. Plaintiffs failed to establish that the accident would not have occurred if Costa had adhered to the permitted pier length of 160 feet, as the evidence indicated that the Moondance struck the dock in multiple locations, including the outermost point where a gazebo was located, without proving causation linked to the pier's length. Consequently, the plaintiffs did not successfully rebut the Louisiana presumption of negligence.
Regarding the moving vessel, the standard for negligence in admiralty requires the exercise of reasonable care. Crowley, the vessel's owner, did not take appropriate precautions when forecasts indicated inclement weather for October 25, 2008. Testimonies highlighted that boat owners should secure their vessels or remove them from the harbor during bad weather. Crowley acknowledged that he would typically relocate his boat under such circumstances but failed to do so despite having ample warning about the storm. Forecasters had predicted severe weather days in advance, yet there was no evidence that Crowley took steps to secure the Moondance or arrange for its relocation, even though help was readily available. Thus, he did not meet the duty of care expected of a reasonably prudent boat owner.
Crowley testified that it was routine to relocate boats to safer dock areas, indicating that someone could have moved his boat in his absence. Despite a change in the weather forecast, witnesses affirmed the unpredictability of fall weather, suggesting Crowley acted negligently by not securing his boat before the storm. The court applied the three-prong test from Carroll Towing and determined Crowley was negligent for failing to remove his boat, the Moondance, from Black Rock Harbor in anticipation of the storm.
Regarding causation, while Louisiana law presumes negligent operation, it does not assume that the allision (collision) caused the damages. Costa successfully demonstrated that the damages resulted from the Moondance striking his pier, supported by witness testimony and photographs. The Moondance was identified as the only vessel that broke free and impacted the dock, leading the court to conclude that Crowley’s negligence resulted in the damages.
The plaintiffs alleged that Costa violated state and federal laws by constructing an oversized pier, invoking the Pennsylvania rule, which presumes that a vessel in violation of regulations may be at fault in a collision. The burden is on the violating party to prove that their fault did not contribute to the incident. The plaintiffs cited violations of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Connecticut statutes regarding permits for structures, with the court noting the relevant provisions of the U.S. Code that regulate construction in navigable waters.
Costa constructed a 320-foot pier without a permit that only allowed for a 160-foot structure. However, he may be exempt from the permit requirement under the Grandfather Clause, which applies to structures built before December 18, 1968, provided they do not interfere with navigation. As Costa's pier was built in 1957 and did not impede navigation—evidenced by the absence of navigational issues apart from an incidental collision with the Moondance—the court determined the Grandfather Clause applies. The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has authorized Costa to rebuild his pier beyond the original permit length, indicating no navigational interference with a 312-foot structure.
The plaintiffs also alleged violations of Connecticut General Statute 22a-361, which requires a permit for structures in navigable waters. While the plaintiffs demonstrated that Costa's pier exceeded the permitted length, the court found they did not establish that the statute pertains specifically to marine safety or navigation. Testimony indicated that DEEP would likely have denied a permit for a longer pier if it had not been pre-existing, suggesting that environmental impact is a primary consideration in the permitting process. Although the statute mentions navigation among other factors, the court concluded that the overarching goal of the permitting regulations is to protect marine and coastal environments.
Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence to establish that the Pennsylvania Rule applies, thus not meeting their burden of proof. Consequently, they are deemed liable for damages to Costa’s dock. The plaintiffs claimed limitation of liability under the Limitation of Liability Act, which allows vessel owners to limit liability to the vessel's value if the incident occurred without their privity or knowledge. The court employs a two-step test to assess applicability: first, determining if the accident resulted from negligent conduct, and second, if such conduct occurred without the vessel owner's privity or knowledge. The court found that the collision could have been prevented if Crowley, the vessel owner, had exercised reasonable care by relocating the Moondance before a storm. Since Crowley’s negligence contributed to the incident, the court concluded that the plaintiffs do not qualify for limited liability. Finally, the court assessed damages for the allision with Costa's dock, determining repair costs to be $186,000 for damages affecting an approximately 90 to 100 foot section of the dock and the jetty.
Plaintiffs assert that damages are constrained by federal maritime law due to the pier's deteriorated state before the accident. Courts typically allow depreciation in damage awards for wharves and similar structures, meaning that costs for repairs necessitated by age or prior damage won't be fully compensated. The principle established in relevant case law indicates that plaintiffs are entitled to compensation to restore the pier to its condition at the time of damage, with the Fifth Circuit ruling that damages include repair costs without depreciation deductions if those repairs do not enhance the structure's value or extend its lifespan. However, if prior damage is noted, such as in the case of a fender mat, adjustments may be made to the damages awarded.
In applying the straight-line depreciation formula, the court found that the expected useful life of the dock post-repair would remain the same as at acquisition, which was determined to be 32 years. Thus, since the dock was two-thirds depreciated at the time of the incident, the recovery amount is reduced accordingly, resulting in a total award of $62,000. Additionally, Costa seeks prejudgment interest, which is generally granted in maritime collision cases unless exceptional circumstances, such as undue delay by the plaintiff, are present.
There is insufficient evidence to justify an "exceptional" departure from the norm, leading the court to grant pre-judgment interest, which is typically awarded. The court retains discretion over the interest rate, accrual date, and whether interest will be compounded. Pre-judgment interest can be calculated from the time of injury, payment for repairs, or when repairs could have been initiated. The purpose of this interest is to compensate the claimant for the loss of use of funds until judgment. The court will set the interest rate from the date of the injury, October 25, 2008, using the average prime rate of 3.28% based on historical rates. Thus, Costa is awarded pre-judgment interest from the injury date until judgment at this rate. The total judgment awarded is $70,581.79, inclusive of $62,000 in damages and $8,581.79 in pre-judgment interest without compounding. Additionally, the court has replaced Angelo Costa with Attorney Margaret E. Sullivan as Temporary Administratix of his estate. The plaintiffs initially claimed an affirmative defense related to an "act of God," but this was abandoned during the pre-trial conference. The court clarifies that its findings of fact may be intertwined with its legal conclusions.
Citation format for the Trial Transcript is designated as page/line. Chris Ruskay, owner-operator of Fayerweather Boatyard, testified that only one pennant was observed on the Moondance following the accident on October 26, 2008. Contradicting this, photographs 50 and 51 from Exhibit 208 show two pennants on the boat. Photographs 60 and 61 display a yellow pennant; the one in photograph 60 features a blue string matching the one retrieved from the Moondance (Exhibit 1), while photograph 61 shows a longer blue string. The court concludes that the Moondance had two pennants at the time of the allision.
Crowley monitored weather conditions that week but did not express concern despite forecasts. The court finds him uncredible. Plaintiffs attempted to discredit the weather forecast by showing it covered the broader area of Upton, NY, rather than just Black Rock Harbor; however, the court determined that the summary forecast accurately indicated conditions relevant to Black Rock Harbor, located in the western Sound. Weather expert Trevor Bevens corroborated the accuracy of the forecast in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 35, indicating a predicted storm with potential gale force winds. The court did not credit Bevens’ testimony about the uniqueness of the October 25 storm, citing his analysis limited to a ten-year period and the variability of October weather.
The court dismissed Connecticut Pile's repair cost proposal as an extreme outlier compared to other estimates, with Stafford suggesting potential costs up to $300,000 due to unknown factors. The standard for proving damages allows reasonable approximations rather than mathematical precision. Plaintiffs speculated that without the illegal dock portion, the Moondance would have avoided damage. They claimed the vessel struck the outermost illegal dock section, redirecting its path; however, no evidence supported which part of the dock was struck first.
The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the Moondance would not have struck the dock had it been shorter, as they did not provide evidence of where the vessel impacted Costa's pier. Under the Louisiana rule, the burden was on the plaintiffs to prove their case, but their argument was deemed unconvincing. The court noted that both weather experts indicated that forecasts are sometimes more accurate a few days prior to a storm. The plaintiffs argued that the Pennsylvania and Louisiana Rules cancel each other out, leaving Costa responsible for proving Crowley's negligence. However, if the Pennsylvania Rule applies, it takes precedence and assigns liability based on comparative fault rather than full responsibility for allisions. The Rivers and Harbors Act, which pertains to marine safety and navigation, supports the Pennsylvania Rule in cases involving dredging permits. While both the federal act and the Connecticut statute require permits for marine structures, the Rivers and Harbors Act specifically prohibits obstructions to navigable waters. The court clarified that violations triggering the Pennsylvania Rule relate to obstructions rather than permit violations for building structures. The court ultimately determined damages based on the cost of repairing the dock as if it had been repaired in 2008, with prejudgment interest reflecting potential earnings had those funds been utilized for repairs at that time.
