1. Significant Seven-Figure Settlement in Cheat Lake Boat Explosion
Heavens Law Firm helped obtain a significant seven-figure settlement for a family injured in a boat explosion and flash fire on Cheat Lake in Monongalia County, West Virginia. The case involved claims against multiple parties, including the boat manufacturer, marina, boat owner and insurance interests.
What began as a family outing on Cheat Lake ended in a devastating explosion after the boat stopped at a marina to refuel.
On August 16, 2020, several members of two related families were aboard a 2000 Crownline CR 242. At approximately 6:40 p.m., the boat stopped at Edgewater Marina and took on approximately 38 gallons of gasoline. When an attempt was made to restart the engine, accumulated gasoline vapors ignited, causing an explosion and flash fire. The explosion was captured on the marina’s surveillance cameras.
Several family members, including children, suffered burn injuries.
Investigation of the Explosion
The case required an extensive investigation into how gasoline vapors were able to accumulate inside the boat and what caused those vapors to ignite.
The boat and its components were inspected and subjected to laboratory testing. The investigation identified fuel leakage in the area where the fuel sending unit connected to the fuel tank. Testing showed that the replacement fuel sending unit had not been properly installed: the attaching screws were loose and the gasket had been improperly installed.
The investigation also examined the source of ignition. Laboratory testing identified the battery switch and associated electrical conductors as the most probable ignition source. Investigators found smoke staining inside the switch and a conductor that had not been fully tightened.
The boat’s ventilation system was also examined. Both blower fans were tested and found to be operational. The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources concluded that the blowers had not been properly used to evacuate gasoline vapors before an attempt was made to start the engine.
The investigation ultimately required consideration of the conduct and responsibility of multiple parties associated with the manufacture, ownership, maintenance, fueling and operation of the boat.
Serious Burn Injuries
The most severely injured passenger was only 16 years old.
She suffered extensive third-degree burns to both legs and her left arm and underwent multiple debridement procedures and skin grafts. Her treatment included inpatient rehabilitation with around-the-clock nursing care followed by outpatient physical and occupational therapy.
Her injuries resulted in permanent scarring and continued treatment. By the time the claim was being evaluated, her medical expenses alone exceeded $900,000, with substantial future medical care anticipated.
Other family members, including children, also suffered burns to their arms, legs, hands, feet and face. The family members experienced not only physical injuries but significant emotional effects from experiencing the explosion and witnessing their relatives being burned.
Multiple Liability and Insurance Issues
The case was complicated by the number of parties and legal issues involved.
In addition to determining why the boat exploded, the litigation required investigation of the responsibilities of the boat manufacturer, marina, boat owner and operator, as well as significant insurance-coverage issues.
The insurance issues were particularly complicated. Records showed that the boat had been purchased by a limited liability company, while questions subsequently arose concerning how the boat had been insured and who was identified as the named insured. The case therefore required pursuing not only the underlying liability claims but also the insurance coverage potentially available to compensate the injured family members.
Significant Seven-Figure Settlement
After extensive investigation and litigation, Heavens Law Firm and co-counsel obtained a significant seven-figure settlement for the injured family members.
The settlement included contributions associated with multiple parties, including the boat manufacturer, marina and insurance coverage applicable to the boat.
The case illustrates why serious boating accidents and explosions should be investigated immediately and independently. Determining responsibility can require preservation and inspection of the vessel, laboratory examination of fuel and electrical components, review of maintenance and repair records, marina records, surveillance video, insurance policies and testimony from multiple witnesses and experts.
An accident that initially appears to have a single cause can ultimately involve several responsible parties and multiple sources of insurance coverage.
West Virginia Boat Explosion and Maritime Injury Lawyers
Heavens Law Firm represents individuals and families who have suffered serious injuries in boating accidents, fires, explosions and defective-product cases.
When a serious boating accident occurs, important physical evidence can be altered, repaired or lost if the vessel and its components are not promptly preserved. An early investigation can also identify potential claims against parties beyond the boat operator, including manufacturers, repair facilities, marinas and others whose conduct may have contributed to the accident.
If you or a family member has suffered a serious injury in a boating accident, fire or explosion, contact Heavens Law Firm to discuss your case.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case is different and must be evaluated on its particular facts.
2. New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium v. West Virginia University
People involved in boating accidents often do not appreciate how the complexities of admiralty and maritime law may interfere with their right to fair compensation. Such was the case for the family of Michael Stanley of Parkersburg, West Virginia. Mr. Stanley was a graduate student at West Virginia University (WVU) working aboard a research vessel on the Hudson River on June 18, 1998, when the vessel capsized and Mr. Stanley drowned. Following the tragedy, Mr. Stanley’s family could not get a straight answer out of WVU or the owner of the vessel, New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium (NJMSC). As is common is these situations, both of these entities blamed the other for Mr. Stanley’s drowning and neither would accept any responsibility for Mr. Stanley’s death.
Mr. Stanley’s parents, Richard and Dorthy Stanley, retained Heavens Law Firm to get to the truth about what happened to their son. Not long after the Stanleys met with Chris Heavens, NJMSC filed a Limitation of Liability Action in federal court in Newark, New Jersey, seeking to have the Court declare that all damages, including damages for the wrongful death of Mr. Stanley, be limited to the value of the vessel, which was about $25,000. The invocation of the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. §§181 – 196 (“Limitation Act”), left the Stanley family shocked, confused, and upset that NJMSC was essentially suing them (NJMSC argued that Mr. Stanley was an agent of WVU) and asserting that their son’s life was worth no more than $25,000.
Because of the action taken by NJMSC, West Virginia University immediately took the legal position that Mr. Stanley was an employee of WVU and thus WVU was entitled to workers compensation immunity (meaning Mr. Stanley’s family could not sue WVU). This position by WVU was disturbing to the Stanley family, since WVU had done nothing to train graduate students for dealing with an emergency while on board a research vessel and since there were no life jackets available to Mr. Stanley at the time the boat capsized. Incredibly, WVU had no policy requiring its graduate students to wear life jackets while on research vessels.
Heavens Law Firm immediately took action in response to the positions of NJMSC and WVU. First, a vessel owner, pursuant to the Limitation Act, is not entitled to limit its liability 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. Farrell Lines, Inc. v. Jones, 530 F.2d 7 (5th Cir. 1976), rehearing denied 532 F.2d 1375 (5th Cir. 1976). Heavens Law Firm argued that the vessel was unseaworthy because when the fish net became snagged on an underwater obstruction, there was no breakaway feature to free the vessel and prevent it from capsizing. Heavens Law Firm also argued that the absence of readily available life jackets made the vessel unseaworthy (NJMSC argued that life jackets were stowed and Mr. Stanley had the option to wear a life jacket). As for WVU, Heavens Law Firm invoked West Virginia’s Intentional Tort Statute against WVU, arguing that the conduct of WVU in failing to train students for work out on the water and failure to require students to wear life jackets amounted to egregious misconduct of such a magnitude so as to void workers compensation immunity. Heavens Law Firm also argued that Mr. Stanley was not an employee of WVU in the legal definition contained in case law (graduate students were provided a stipend, so WVU did have a credible argument on this point).
Despite all of the legal obstacles thrown at the Stanley family, Heavens Law Firm was able to reach a substantial six figure confidential settlement with the parties, which was well in excess of the limitation of liability figure. However, the Stanley Family’s experience with our legal system compounded the grief they experienced in losing their son in such a preventable tragedy. For all those people who believe that corporations and insurance companies need laws passed to prevent victims from holding corporations and insurance companies accountable, talk to the Stanley family.
The experience of the Stanley family is not an isolated incident. Insurance companies are now wielding the Limitation Act as a sword. The Act applies to all “seagoing vessels, and also to all vessels used on lakes or rivers or in inland navigation, including canal boats, barges, and lighters.” 46 U.S.C. App. §186. The term vessel has recently been enlarged by the U.S. Supreme Court in Stewart v. Dutra Const. Co., 543 U.S. 481, 125 S.Ct. 1118 (2005). Owners of pleasure craft, including jet skis and house boats, are permitted to limit liability.Keys Jet Ski, Inc. v. Kays, 893 F.2d 1225 (11th Cir. 1990); Warnken v. Moody, 22 F.2d 960, 962 (5thCir.1927); In re Guglielmo, 704 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.N.Y.1989) (twenty-one foot motor boat).
If you, a family member or a friend are harmed in a boating or jet ski accident, you should retain a lawyer immediately to help you overcome the evasive actions of wrongdoers and their insurance companies that is surely to follow.
*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
