{"id":8236,"date":"2023-08-03T14:40:19","date_gmt":"2023-08-03T14:40:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.awkolaw.com\/?p=8236"},"modified":"2023-08-03T14:40:40","modified_gmt":"2023-08-03T14:40:40","slug":"skanska-lost-its-appeal-what-that-ruling-means-for-pensacola","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.awkolaw.com\/skanska-lost-its-appeal-what-that-ruling-means-for-pensacola\/","title":{"rendered":"Skanska lost its appeal. What that ruling means for Pensacola."},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.19.5″ custom_margin=”0px||||false|false” custom_padding=”0px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.19.5″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” custom_margin=”0px||||false|false” custom_padding=”0px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.21.0″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content” custom_padding=”25px|25px|0px|25px|false|true” custom_margin=”||0px||false|false” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n

A federal appeals court on Wednesday sided with a Pensacola federal judge who found that Skanska was negligent in its response to Hurricane Sally when more than two dozen of its barges broke loose from their moorings, causing chaos across Pensacola Bay.<\/p>\n

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled against Skanska\u2019s request to overturn Pensacola U.S. District Court Judge Lacey Collier\u2019s December 2021 decision that found Skanska could not shield itself under an obscure 19th century maritime law because its corporate officers were the ones who made negligent decisions that led to the barges coming loose during Hurricane Sally.<\/p>\n

More than 1,000 people and businesses have come forward with claims against the company in state court because of damage caused by the barges or economic loss from the closure of the Pensacola Bay Bridge for eight months following the storm.<\/p>\n

What does the ruling mean?<\/h2>\n

A Skanska representative declined to comment on the ruling Wednesday, citing the ongoing litigation.<\/p>\n

However attorneys with the three law firms representing the people and businesses with active claims against the construction company praised the ruling.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt’s a good day for Pensacola,\u201d said Thomas Gonzalez, an attorney with the Beggs and Lane law firm. \u201cEverybody in the region, from people who live by the Navy base over to Warrington over to Santa Rosa, over to Gulf Breeze, etc. had some impact by Skanka’s negligence in just leaving those barges in the middle of the bay.\u201d<\/p>\n

The more than 1,000 cases in pending in state court can now begin to move forward.<\/p>\n

Sam Geisler, an attorney with Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis and Overholtz, said the first state court case could go to trial as soon as November.<\/p>\n

The one issue that will still need to be decided in lower courts is whether economic losses can be claimed in relation to maritime accidents based on a 1927 Supreme Court case known as the Robin\u2019s Dry Dock case.<\/p>\n

That case limits liability to only physical damage caused by a vessel.<\/p>\n

Nearly 900 of the more than 1,000 cases are related to economic losses caused by the barge disaster and not direct physical damage.<\/p>\n

Geisler said that issue could be briefed before an Escambia County Circuit judge as soon as September.<\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.21.0″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content” sticky_enabled=”0″ custom_padding=”0px|25px|0px|25px|false|true” custom_margin=”||0px||false|false”]<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThere’s a battle ahead of us, certainly, but this is a gigantic step forward,\u201d – Sam Geisler<\/a> of Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.21.0″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content” custom_padding=”0px|25px|0px|25px|false|true” custom_margin=”||0px||false|false” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n

Will Skanska appeal?<\/h2>\n

Skanska can ask the 11th Circuit to hear the case again before all of the appeals court judges or it can appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Brian Barr, an attorney with the Levin Papantonio Rafferty law firm, said he fully expects Skanska to appeal the decision.<\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.21.0″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content” sticky_enabled=”0″ custom_padding=”0px|25px|0px|25px|false|true” custom_margin=”||0px||false|false”]<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cI fully expect Skanska to try to take this to the Supreme Court,\u201d Barr said. \u201cWe\u2019ll see if they\u2019re successful or not, but meanwhile, the main thing is we can start trying cases in state court, and that\u2019s what we\u2019re aiming to do. We feel our mission at this point is to hold this company responsible, and we now have the ability to do that.\u201d\u00a0Brian Barr of Papantonio Rafferty.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.21.0″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content” custom_padding=”0px|25px|0px|25px|false|true” custom_margin=”||0px||false|false” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n

Barr said Skanska may have more to lose than it will gain in a Supreme Court appeal because if the high court takes up the case, it could indicate it’s looking to roll back some of the outdated liability protections in maritime law.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think they need to think really long and hard about whether or not that\u2019s something they\u2019d want to do because we would certainly be making the effort to have those protections taken away,\u201d Barr said.<\/p>\n

Barr said he also doubts Skanska would look to settle the case any time soon as the company has refused to enter into talks in cases where their barges clearly caused damage, such as the Escambia County Fishing Pier.<\/p>\n

\u201cI have no anticipation that they’re going to all of a sudden get a good heart and come in and try and do the right thing,\u201d Barr said.<\/p>\n

What was in the ruling?<\/h2>\n

The main issue of the ruling was a maritime law known as the Limitation Act that limits the owner of a vessel\u2019s liability to the vessel’s value.<\/p>\n

Had Skanska won the case, its liability would\u2019ve been capped at $1.2 million, which was the combined value of the runaway barges.<\/p>\n

The Limitation Act was passed by Congress in 1851, and the appeals court noted that 50 years ago, federal courts complained the law was poorly written and \u201chopelessly anachronistic\u201d and had been due for a rewrite for 75 years. The court noted that the count is now up to 141 years.<\/p>\n

Despite the complaints, the appeals court found that Collier followed federal precedents correctly in deciding the Skanska case in ruling that liability limits did not apply and that Skanska was negligent in the episode.<\/p>\n

\u201d(The) district court decided that Skanska could not limit its liability because its own corporate officials were responsible for the negligent acts that led to the barges getting loose in the storm,\u201d the appeals court wrote.<\/p>\n

Skanska argued the District Court moved through the procedures of the Limitations Act too quickly and that it should have decided whether it was liable in each and every claim first and then determined the limit of its liability in that claim.<\/p>\n

The appeals court said that reading would \u201cturn the Limitation Act on its head,\u201d and the courts have already rejected that interpretation of the law.<\/p>\n

Skanska also appealed its sanctions for allowing evidence on employee cell phones to be deleted in the case. Collier had imposed $92,000 in attorneys fees over the issue and found Skanska acted in \u201cbad faith\u201d in the case.<\/p>\n

The appeal court ultimately agreed, though it noted it could be argued that Skanka wasn\u2019t acting in bad faith with the evidence but rather was \u201c\u2019just\u2019 grossly negligent,\u201d but the court saw no reason to question Collier\u2019s ruling on that issue.<\/p>\n

\u201cSkanska is a sophisticated entity \u2014 a multinational company tasked with completing a construction contract worth nearly $400 million,\u201d the appeals court wrote. \u201c\u2026 Even so, Skanska did not bother to take the most fundamental of precautions \u2014 starting with backing up those custodians\u2019 cell phones and suspending its policy of wiping those phones.\u201d<\/p>\n

Read the full article at the PNJ<\/a><\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

More than 1,000 people & businesses have come forward with claims against Skanska in state court because of damage caused by the barges.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":6327,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"\n

ESCAMBIA COUNTY, Fla. -- The court must now find a new judge in the case against Skanska USA regarding Three Mile Bridge damage after the current judge recused himself from the case.<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Judge Roger Vinson did so, he says, because the homeowners association in Portofino where he owns a condo filed a claim in the case on Friday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The deadline to file a claim against Skanska wrapped up Monday night.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Sam Geisler -- an attorney for law firm Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz -- says he counted around 985 claims in total. His firm filed 485 of those.<\/p>\n

\"Really, you have businesses of all shapes and sizes, from a one-person business all the way up to hundreds of employees,\" he said. \"Like Baptist, for example, filed a claim, along with all kinds of different businesses. And also municipalities, both counties, both cities -- Gulf Breeze and Pensacola -- filed claims.. ...Really just the level of filing shows just the breadth of effect Skanska's conduct has caused this region.\"<\/p>\n

Geisler says many filed right before the deadline. He believes those people likely wanted to have all the information and documentation ready before making the claim official.<\/p>\n

As the court works to replace Judge Vinson, Geisler says, if anything, it could impact future deadlines.<\/p>\n

In June, a judge will hear oral arguments, deciding if Maritime Law applies in this case. Regardless, a judge will then hear arguments on Sept. 13 about whether Skanska can be held liable for damages related to the closure.<\/p>\n

Until those deadlines, Geisler says both parties will file numerous documents.<\/p>\n

\"Even without the documents, it's hard to imagine how Skanska was not even just a little bit -- and that's all we need to show -- just a little bit negligent,\" he said. \"Considering in our position, they were grossly negligent, if not worse so.\"<\/p>\n

Skanska provided Channel 3 this statement on Tuesday:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\"Skanska is focused on repairing the Pensacola Bay Bridge as quickly and safely as possible. We remain committed to putting the full resources of our company forward and reconnecting the communities.\"<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

Skanska plans to reopen Pensacola Bay Bridge the week of May 31.<\/a><\/p>\n

\"Reopening a bridge that you were responsible for closing is not the end of accountability,\" Geisler said. \"It is really not even the beginning of accountability.\"<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

By: Olivia Iverson<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Date:

Source<\/a><\/p>\n","_et_gb_content_width":"1080","footnotes":""},"categories":[44,51,49,50,71],"tags":[117,118,115],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.awkolaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8236"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.awkolaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.awkolaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.awkolaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.awkolaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8236"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.awkolaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8236\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8241,"href":"https:\/\/www.awkolaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8236\/revisions\/8241"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.awkolaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6327"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.awkolaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8236"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.awkolaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8236"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.awkolaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8236"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}