FAY NICOLL, APPELLANT,
v.
MAGICAL CRUISE COMPANY, LIMITED, ETC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this maritime tort case, the Fifth District Court of Appeal denied the cruise ship company's motion for appellate attorneys' fees, holding that federal admiralty law—not Florida state law—governs substantive issues in maritime cases, and under federal law the prevailing party is not entitled to attorneys' fees absent special circumstances.
Federal admiralty law governs substantive issues in maritime cases, including attorneys' fees entitlements. Under federal admiralty law, a prevailing party is not entitled to attorneys' fees absent circumstances not applicable here, even when state law provides an entitlement to fees. Therefore, Appellee's motion for attorneys' fees is denied.
[1] Federal admiralty law governs substantive issues in maritime cases, including attorneys' fees.
[2] A state statute providing for attorneys' fees does not apply in a maritime case if federal admiralty law does not permit such fees.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because federal admiralty law governs substantive issues in maritime cases, Appellee's reliance on non-admiralty cases is misplaced.”
Establishes that federal law, not state law, controls substantive issues in maritime tort cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Fay Nicoll slipped and fell in a restroom aboard one of Appellee Magical Cruise Company's ships. Appellee served an offer of judgment which …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Maritime Law cases and more on FLexlaw
*99ON MOTION FOR WRITTEN OPINION
Appellee seeks a written opinion regarding our prior order denying its motion for appellate attorneys’ fees. We withdraw our prior order and substitute this opinion in its stead. Because this case is a maritime case, federal law governs substantive issues, including attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, applying federal law, we deny the motion for attorneys’ fees, notwithstanding Appellee’s entitlement to fees under state law.
Appellant brought suit against Ap-pellee after she slipped and fell in a restroom aboard one of Appellee’s ships. Appellee served an offer of judgment on Appellant, which was rejected. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Appellee on all counts of Appellant’s complaint, and we affirmed. Appellee seeks attorneys’ fees on appeal pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2012). Entitlement to attorneys’ fees under this statute is a substantive right. Se. Floating Docks, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 82 So.3d 73, 80 (Fla.2012).
Appellee cites numerous cases in support of its motion, none of which involve a maritime tort claim. Because federal admiralty law governs substantive issues in maritime cases, Appellee’s reliance on non-admiralty cases is misplaced. See Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 628, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550 (1959) (holding that federal admiralty law governs substantive issues in maritime cases); see also Rindfleisch v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 498 So.2d 488, 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (applying federal admiralty law to substantive issues in tort claim). Under federal admiralty law, the prevailing party is not entitled to attorneys’ fees absent circumstances not applicable here, even when a state statute establishes an entitlement to fees. Misener Marine Constr., Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 594 F.3d 832, 841 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 3505, 177 L.Ed.2d 1091 (2010); Texas A & M Research Found. v. Magna Transp. Inc., 338 F.3d 394, 405 (5th Cir. 2003); Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. v. Kenealy, 72 F.3d 264, 270 (2d Cir.1995); Southworth Mach. Co. v. F/V Corey Pride, 994 F.2d 37, 41 (1st Cir.1993); Su v. M/V S. Aster, 978 F.2d 462, 475 (9th Cir.1992); Sosebee v. Rath, 893 F.2d 54, 56-57 (3d Cir.1990).
Although not cited by either party, we are aware that our decision is in conflict with our sister court’s decision in Royal Caribbean Corp. v. Modesto, 614 So.2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). We disagree with that decision for the same reasons expressed in Garan, Inc. v. M/V Aivik, 907 F.Supp. 397, 400 (S.D.Fla.1995). We note that a panel of the Third District, in a nonfinal opinion, has recently called Modesto into question. See Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Cox, — So.3d-(Fla. 3d DCA 2012).
MOTION FOR FEES DENIED.
SAWAYA and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. COX, 137 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…1127 (11th Cir.1995) (citing Nichols v. Barwick, 792 F. 2d 1520, 1524 (11th Cir.1986)); Hilton Oil Transp. v. Oil Transp. Co., S.A., 659 So. 2d 1141, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). . We further note that our sister court in Nicoll v. Magical Cruise Co., 110 So. 3d 98, 99 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), reached the same conclusion and held that "[u]nder federal admi [*1161] ralty law, the prevailing party is not entitled to attorneys' fees absent circumstances not applicable here, even when a state statute establishes an en…
-
Marco Marine Constr., Inc. v. Kopras, 268 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…osts in a maritime case based on Fla. Stat., § 768.79 and F. R. C. P., Rule 1.442. This Court is, however, cognizant of the rulings in Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Cox, 137 So. 3d 1157, 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), Nicoll v. Magical Cruise Co., 110 So. 3d 98, 99 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), and Garan, Inc. v. M/V Aivik, 907 F. Supp. 397 (S.D. Fla. 1995), which were decided subsequent to, and contrary to, the decision in Juneau. Notwithstanding, the Court must follow the holding of Juneau. (Footnote omitt…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1959)
- Se. Floating Docks, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 82 So. 3d 73 (Fla. 2012)
- Rindfleisch v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 498 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Misener Marine Constr., Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 594 F.3d 832 (11th Cir. 2010)
- Ford Sosebee v. Rath, 893 F.2d 54 (3d Cir. 1990)
- Southworth Mach. Co., Inc. v. F/V Corey Pride, 994 F.2d 37 (1st Cir. 1993)
- Garan Inc. v. M/V Aivik, 907 F. Supp. 397 (S.D. Fla. 1995)
- Royal Caribbean Corp. v. Modesto, 614 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Cordoba v. Strawberry Fields Hous. Corp., 614 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- SU v. M/V Southern Aster, 978 F.2d 462 (9th Cir. 1992)