The central point is that limitation can immunize only an owner . Others at fault do not qualify for limitation.
Charles, what you say about privity and knowledge is how I read the article. "limit its liability ... except when the loss occurred due to its "privity or knowledge." 46 U.S.C. App. §183(a). In other words, privity or knowledge will be found to exist where the acts of negligence or unseaworthiness that caused the casualty were known
or should have been know by the vessel owner."
However, it is also my understanding that this law can protect any party that is master of the vessel, including non- owner captains (bare boat charter captains).
From the article I posted a link to in an earlier post (
Limitation of Liability | Mt. Pleasant Maritime Liability Attorney):
"II. Who is Entitled to Limit Liability?
As to who is entitled to limit liability, the Limitation Act merely states "the owner of any vessel, whether American or foreign" can limit its liability. 46 U.S.C. App. §183(a). However, courts have interpreted the word "owner" to include parties other than the registered owner of vessels. Courts include those who exhibit some type of domination or control over the vessel. Dick v. U.S., 671 F.2d 724, 727 (2nd Cir. 1982)
("As a general rule, one who is subjected to a shipowner's liability because of his exercise of dominion over a vessel should be able to limit his liability to that of an owner."). Owners include the following:
1. Those possessing legal title to the vessel.
2. President and sole shareholder of the vessel owning company. Complaint of Lady Jane, Inc., 818 F.Supp. 1470 (M.D.Fla. 1992).
3. United States as owner
pro hac vice of Coast Guard auxiliary boats, which become "public vessels" when assigned to government service. Dick v. U.S., 671 F.2d at 728.
4. Owners of the vessel at the time of the casually who have sold the vessel at the time of litigation. In re Complaint of Sheen, 709 F.Supp. 1123 (S.D. Fla. 1989).
5. Charterers who "man, victual, and navigate such vessel at his own expense, or by his own procurement shall be deemed the owner of such vessel." 46 U.S.C. App. §186. As such, demise and bareboat charters have been found to be owners, and time and voyage charterers are not considered owners. The Severance, 152 F.2d 916 (4th Cir. 1946). A demise charterer may only be able to limit if the charter relinquishes possession, command and navigation of the vessel. Guzman v. Pichirilo, 369 U.S. 698 (1962).
A vessel's manager, who employed the towboat's crew, was not permitted to limit its liability as it did not exercise sufficient control or dominion over vessel to be considered an owner
pro hac vice, for limitation of liability purposes. In re American Milling Co., Ltd., 409 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 2005). Agents of owners and technical managers are not permitted to limit liability. Matter of Oil Spill by Amoco Cadiz, 954 F.2d 1279 (7thCir. 1992); Norfolk Dredging Co. v. M/V A/V KASTNER, 264 F.Supp.2d 265 (D.Md. 2003).
Even though the P&I insurer of a vessel is not permitted to invoke the Limitation Act, the P&I insurer can rely upon the Act to limit the amount of its exposure for personal injury damages. In order to do so, the vessel owner must first demonstrate it is entitled to limit liability under the Act. If this occurs, then the P&I insurer may not be liable for any amount beyond the vessel owners judicially approved limitation of liability where the terms of the insurance policy, or club rules, limit liability to the vessel owner's liability. Crown Zellerbach Corp. v. Ingram Industries, Inc., 783 F.2d 1296 (5th Cir. 1986)."
So, insurance companies can only benefit indirectly from this law. The quote specifies "personal injury damage", but it seems as though the insurance company wouldn't have to cover any more damages to the plaintiff than the vessel owner was found to owe.
-Will (Dragonfly)