Energetic Tank, Inc. v. Unknown

Background

The case concerns the August 21, 2017 collision between the U.S.S. JOHN S. MCCAIN, a Navy destroyer, and the M/V ALNIC, an oil tanker owned by Energetic Tank, Inc., in the Singapore Strait. Ten Navy sailors died and dozens were injured. The case was divided into a liability phase and a damages phase. Earlier, the court had ruled that Singapore law governs substantive issues of liability and damages. In the liability phase, the court determined that the McCain was 80 percent at fault and the Alnic was 20 percent at fault. The damages phase will address personal-injury and wrongful-death claims before a jury.

Motion and Parties’ Positions

The Hofmann Claimants—Andy Aceret, Jason Baldwin, Delando Beckford, Vares Belony, Carmelo Castro, Michael Collins, Jerrell Dean, Phillip Fields, Victor Granados, Kerrington Harvey, Byron Jamal Johnson, Milton Lovelace, Tracey Lovelace, Clember Miranda, Matthew Montgomery, Joshua Patat, John Ray, Davion Reese, Juan Romero, Rodrigo Tionquiao, Philip Torio, Dedrick Walker, Akimwalle Winter, James Woods, Michael Wuest, and Brandon York—filed a motion in limine, meaning a request to limit what evidence may be presented at trial. They asked the court to bar Energetic Tank from introducing Singapore’s Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases.

The Guidelines, first published by Singapore courts in 2010, compile prior Singapore damages awards and list likely compensation ranges based on the type and extent of an injury. The claimants argued that damages calculation was procedural under Singapore law and that United States law should therefore govern damages calculation. They also argued that the court should use a choice-of-law approach allowing Singapore law to govern liability while United States law governed damages.

Energetic Tank stated that it did not intend to introduce the Guidelines as evidence for the jury or call a Singapore-law expert to testify about them unless the court instructed otherwise. The court held that these concessions resolved most of the evidentiary dispute.

Court’s Analysis

The court ruled, on the parties’ consent, that the Guidelines would not be admitted as evidence during the damages phase and that any Singapore-law expert called by Energetic Tank could not testify about the Guidelines.

The court separately concluded that the motion improperly sought reconsideration of the earlier ruling that Singapore law governs both liability and damages. The court noted that the claimants had waited roughly four and a half years after the earlier reconsideration decision. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and Local Civil Rule 6.3 impose time limits on reconsideration requests, and the court held that the delay was unreasonable. The court also found that the claimants were presenting new arguments that had not been properly raised earlier and had not identified controlling decisions or factual matters that the court previously overlooked.

The court rejected the claimants’ characterization of damages calculation as procedural. It explained that Second Circuit precedent treats the determination of damages, including the amount awarded, as a substantive legal issue. Because Singapore law governs substantive damages issues in this case, the court held that it could use Singapore law concerning damages without referring the matter back to United States damages law.

Ruling

Judge Loretta A. Preska denied the Hofmann Claimants’ motion in limine. The Guidelines may not be introduced as evidence at the Phase II trial, and an expert may not testify about them. However, Energetic Tank may propose that the Guidelines guide, or potentially govern, the jury instructions on calculating damages because those instructions may incorporate the substantive Singapore law applicable to the case. The clerk was directed to close docket entries 528 and 582.