Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 or 2006.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Members-Only discussion list. Not a member? Join today!

June 8, 2006

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States

TOPICS:
- Real Property - valuing
- Maritime law - Time Charter Agreement

Ohio Supreme Court: No Opinion.
First District Court of Appeals: [Search Other Ohio Districts]; No Opinion.
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Ohio Cases: Fortis Corp Ins v. Viken Ship Mngmt (June 8, 2006) (Appeal from N.D.
Ohio)
- http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0192p-06.pdf
- In this maritime shipping case, we consider whether the district
court properly ruled that it lacked personal jurisdiction over
defendants-appellants Viken Lakers A/S and Viken Ship Management A/S
("VSM"). These two Norwegian companies own and manage a fleet of
ocean-going cargo vessels. In 1998, defendants entered a Time Charter
Agreement with FedNav International (a Canadian company). The agreement
chartered to FedNav a fleet of vessels, including the M/V Inviken, for a
period of several years to transport cargo on an as-needed basis. FedNav
subchartered the M/V Inviken to Metallia LLC (a U.S. company) to carry a
specific cargo of steel coils from Szczecin, Poland to Toledo, Ohio. En
route seawater entered the cargo hold of the M/V Inviken, causing severe
rust damage to the coils. Plaintiff-Appellant Fortis Corporate
Insurance, a Belgian company, is a surrogate insurance underwriter of
Metallia. Fortis paid $375,000 to resolve Metallia's insurance claim.
On February 2, 2004, Fortis sued defendants in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio, which district includes Toledo, for
damages allegedly caused by negligence and breach of bailment
obligations.2 In their answer, defendants maintained that the district
court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. However, the court allowed
Fortis to conduct discovery to demonstrate, if it could, that
jurisdiction existed. On October 15, 2004, defendants moved for summary
judgment dismissing the suit on the theory that the federal court in
Toledo lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants. On March 16, 2005,
the district court granted this motion. See Fortis Corporate Ins. v. M/V
Inviken, et al., 2005 WL 646092 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 16, 2005). The court
then granted Fortis' motion for voluntary dismissal of its amended
complaint. On May 17, 2005, the district court entered an Order of Final
Judgment. On June 6, 2005, Fortis filed its timely Notice of Appeal. On
appeal we review de novo the district court's dismissal of the case
for lack of personal jurisdiction, see Southerland v. Wofford, 894 F.2d
408 (6th Cir. 1990), and we reverse.
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases: USA v. Certain Land (June 8, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Michigan)
- http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0193p-06.pdf
- This appeal represents the culmination of a protracted condemnation
proceeding the length of which calls Dickens' Bleak House to mind.
Detroit International Bridge Company ("DIBCO") appeals from a jury
verdict that determined the value of two parcels of land owned by the
company and located near the Ambassador Bridge, which connects Detroit
to Windsor, Canada. In 1979, the General Services Administration
("GSA"), acting on behalf of the Customs Service, initiated a
condemnation action. The crux of this appeal involves a dispute over the
proper method of valuing the property at issue, as well as the amount of
interest owing on the judgment.

Law Blog

Daily Case Updates