Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE SKANSKA USA CIVIL

SOUTHEAST INC. AND

SKANSKA USA, INC. AS

OWNERS OF THE BARGE KS

5531, PRAYING FOR

EXONERATION FROM OR

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

GSDZ, LLC,

 CLAIMANT.

ADMIRALTY RULE 9(H)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

3:20-CV-05980 – RV / MJF

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

ROGER VINSON

THIS PLEADING RELATES TO

CIVIL ACTION NOS:

3:20-CV-05980-RV / MJF

3:20-CV-05981-RV / MJF

3:20-CV-05982-RV / MJF

3:20-CV-05983-RV / MJF

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR EXONERATION OR LIMITATION OF

LIABILITY

AND NOW, specifically reserving all defenses asserted herein, including, 

without limitation, Claimant’s right to pursue its claims in state court pursuant to the 

Savings to Suitors Clause, 28 U.S.C. §1333, and all state law remedies, Claimant 

responds to the identical, individual Paragraphs of the Complaints for Exoneration 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 71 Filed 04/20/21 Page 1 of 10
Page 2 of 10

From or Limitation of Liability filed in 3:20-cv-05980, 3:20-cv-05981, 3:20-cv05982, and 3:20-cv-059831

, upon information and belief, as follows:

1. Admitted only that the Petitioners claim the jurisdiction of this Court 

for the Limitation of Liability Complaint. It is denied that Petitioners, or any other 

parties responsible for Claimant’s losses, are entitled to any limitation of their 

liability under Florida, Federal, or Maritime law. It is averred that jurisdiction and 

venue for the disposition of Claimant’s claims against Petitioner and any other party 

responsible for Claimant’s damages is proper in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial 

Circuit in and for Escambia County, Florida.

2. Claimant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of these allegations and so, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(5), they are 

denied. Without waiver of the foregoing, Claimant denies Petitioners’ 

characterization of KS 5531, 460007, CBR 758, AND KS 6011 as a “vessel” as that 

term applies to 46 USC § 30505 of the Limitation of Shipowners’ Liability Act, 

Supplemental Rule F, or any other basis upon which Defendants’ assert admiralty or 

maritime jurisdiction. Maritime law does not apply. The work platforms at issue in 

this case are not properly considered “vessels.” They are not “used, or capable of 

1 Petitioners’ Complaints filed in 3:20-cv-05980, 3:20-cv-05981, 3:20-cv-05982, 

and 3:20-cv-05983, are identical in all respects other than the identifying 

characteristics of the subject work platforms described therein, which Claimant lacks 

knowledge or information to challenge.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 71 Filed 04/20/21 Page 2 of 10
Page 3 of 10

being used, as a means of transportation on water”; they have no means of selfpropulsion and lack other characteristics typically associated with “vessels.” These 

work platforms were wholly engaged in the service of construction, rather than 

traditional maritime activity. Any use of these work platforms that involves 

“traditional maritime activity,” if there is any, is merely incidental to their design 

and purpose of serving as work platforms to facilitate bridge and roadway 

construction, for a company that is engaged in bridge and roadway construction, and 

not in traditional maritime activities. Moreover, the damage to the bridge, although 

extremely disruptive to land-based commerce, does not have a potentially disruptive 

impact on maritime commerce, nor does a substantial relationship exist between 

Petitioners’ negligent conduct in failing to move or safely secure the work platforms 

and traditional maritime activity. Relatedly, none of the parties are injured seamen. 

Therefore, maritime law is inapplicable to this case.

3. The allegations contained in Paragraph 3 are admitted for jurisdictional 

purposes only. Claimant denies all other allegations contained in this Paragraph to 

the extent they call for a response.

4. The allegations contained in Paragraph 4 are admitted for jurisdictional 

purposes only.

5. The allegations contained in Paragraph 5 are denied.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 71 Filed 04/20/21 Page 3 of 10
Page 4 of 10

6. The allegations contained in Paragraph 6 are denied for lack of 

sufficient information to justify a belief therein.

7. The allegations contained in Paragraph 7 are denied.

8. The allegations contained in Paragraph 8 are denied.

9. The allegations contained in Paragraph 9 are denied.

10. The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 are denied.

11. The allegations contained in Paragraph 11 are denied for lack of 

sufficient information to justify a belief therein.

12. The allegations contained in Paragraph 12 are denied for lack of 

sufficient information to justify a belief therein.

13. The allegations contained in Paragraph 13 are denied for lack of 

sufficient information to justify a belief therein.

CONCLUSION

The allegations contained in the Prayer for Relief are not statements of fact, 

but conclusions of law and/or prayers for relief, from which no response is necessary 

from Claimant. However, if responses be deemed necessary, said allegations are 

denied.

DEFENSES2

2 To the extent that any defense refers to KS 5531, 460007, CBR 758, and KS 6011

as vessels, such reference does not imply that Claimant admits that these work 

platforms within the meaning of 46 USC § 30505 of the Limitation of Shipowners’ 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 71 Filed 04/20/21 Page 4 of 10
Page 5 of 10

FIRST DEFENSE

The Limitation of Liability Act is not applicable to the instant case because at 

all times pertinent herein the KS 5531, 460007, CBR 758, and KS 6011 was operated 

in a willful, wanton, and reckless manner or, in the alternative, the conduct and 

actions which led to Claimant’s claim herein for any damages it has, or may incur, 

took place with the privity and knowledge of the owners, managing owners, owners 

pro hac vice, and/or operators of the vessel involved.

SECOND DEFENSE

The Limitation of Liability Act is not applicable in the instant case because at 

all relevant times the KS 5531, 460007, CBR 758, and KS 6011 was known by the 

owner, operator, and/or owner pro hac vice to be unseaworthy for, among things, 

failing to train its operators to follow a proper adverse weather protocol, failing to 

implement procedures for shutting down and securing its property during strong 

weather conditions, failing to follow safe work and operational procedures, failing 

to conduct adequate adverse weather forecasting, failing to properly supervise the 

work with competent employees, failing to make a proper docking and/or security 

plan, and failing to provide a competent crew and safe equipment.

THIRD DEFENSE

Liability Act, Supplemental Rule F, or any other basis upon which Defendants’ 

assert admiralty or maritime jurisdiction. Claimant denies that the work platforms 

are vessels.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 71 Filed 04/20/21 Page 5 of 10
Page 6 of 10

The allegations of the Complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted.

FOURTH DEFENSE

The Limitation Fund is inadequate, and the Complaint should be dismissed

because Petitioners have failed to deposit adequate security for the vessel identified

in its Complaint for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability.

FIFTH DEFENSE

To the extent Petitioner’s insurers attempt to avail themselves of the 

Limitation/Exoneration defense, Claimant asserts that the Limitation of Liability Act 

is unavailable to insurers of vessel owners under the circumstances. In the 

alternative, no prima facie case has been made establishing that they are entitled to 

avail themselves of the Limitation of Liability Act.

SIXTH DEFENSE

The events culminating in Claimant’s damages were a result of the 

negligence, fault, or want of due care on the part of Petitioners and/or those for whom 

Petitioners are responsible, all of which was within the privity and knowledge of 

Petitioners, for which the Complaint in Limitation should be denied.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 71 Filed 04/20/21 Page 6 of 10
Page 7 of 10

SEVENTH DEFENSE

The events culminating in Claimant’s damages were not the result of any

negligence, fault or want of due care on Claimant’s part or those for whom it may

be responsible.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

Upon information and belief, there was insurance coverage on the KS 5531,

460007, CBR 758, and KS 6011 insuring Petitioners in the event of an occurrence

such as that which is the subject of Claimant’s claims, and the proceeds of said

insurance policy should be included in this limitation proceeding in the event the

Court determines these limitation proceedings are appropriate.

NINTH DEFENSE

Claimant reserves the right to contest the appraisal value of the KS 5531,

460007, CBR 758, and KS 6011, including the working platform’s structure,

apparel, appurtenances, pending freight, etc., and the adequacy of the security.

TENTH DEFENSE

The limitation fund is inadequate and should be increased and/or this action

should be dismissed because the limitation fund does not properly account for the

value of appurtenances, attachments, equipment, freight and/or cargo aboard KS 

5531, 460007, CBR 758, and KS 6011, subject to the control of and/or owned by the 

Petitioners.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 71 Filed 04/20/21 Page 7 of 10
Page 8 of 10

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

The Complaint should be dismissed as KS 5531, 460007, CBR 758, and KS 

6011 was not a “seagoing vessel” within the definition of maritime and/or 

admiralty law because they were working platforms.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

The Complaint should be dismissed as KS 5531, 460007, CBR 758, and KS 

6011 were engaged in the construction of a bridge or roadway, not in maritime 

activity.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

Petitioners are barred from seeking the relief sought by the doctrine of judicial 

estoppel. Petitioners have denied in prior proceedings that maritime law applies to 

suits by injured employees incident to its construction of the Bridge, and have further 

invoked the jurisdiction of the of the Circuit Court for Escambia County as a, “court 

of competent jurisdiction” for determination of contractual claims with 

subcontractors. Petitioners cannot now take the inconsistent position that this Court 

has exclusive admiralty jurisdiction over its claims herein.

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

The Complaint for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability contains 

vague and ambiguous statements which are objectionable under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(e), and Claimant seeks more definitive statements of the 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 71 Filed 04/20/21 Page 8 of 10
Page 9 of 10

allegations, regardless of the nature, manner and extent of its Claim and Answer 

herein.

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

Claimant states that the proceeds of any judgment, award, or settlement which 

may be received by Petitioners from any third party in recompense of any losses or 

damages sustained herein to the property or interests of Petitioners, as a result of the 

fault or alleged fault of said third party, must be included in the limitation fund.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

In filing this Claim and Answer, Claimant specifically reserves all rights to

pursue all available claims in state court for resolution of any and all issues beyond

the exclusive jurisdiction of this Admiralty Court pursuant to the Savings to Suitors 

Clause, 28 U.S.C. § 1333, and all state law remedies. The filing of this Claim and 

Answer is in no way a waiver of this right and defense and Claimant is not agreeing 

to join all issues in this proceeding by filing this Claim and Answer.

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

Claimant specifically reserves all rights to pursue all available claims in the

forum of its choice for resolution of any and all issues beyond the exclusive

jurisdiction of this Admiralty Court pursuant to the Savings to Suitors Clause, 28

U.S.C. §1333, and all remedies, and no part of this Claim and Answer is a waiver of 

this defense or these rights.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 71 Filed 04/20/21 Page 9 of 10
Page 10 of 10

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE

Claimant specifically reserves all rights under the “Personal Contract Doctrine” 

against Petitioners to defeat its attempt to limit its liability for a failure within its 

personal control that violated any contract, whether actual or implied, that governs its 

performance.

RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL

Claimant hereby expressly reserves its right to proceed to a trial before a jury in 

state court.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 20, 2021, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice 

of electronic filing to all attorneys of record. I further certify that, on the same day, I 

mailed, faxed or e-mailed the foregoing document and notice of electronic filing to all 

attorney(s) of record who are non-CM/ECF participants.

Respectfully submitted this 20th day of April, 2021.

WHIBBS STONE BARNETT, P.A. 

801 W. Romana St., Unit C 

Pensacola, FL 32502 

Phone: 850.434.5395 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

By:___________________________ 

☐Ryan M. Barnett, Esq. 

FBN: 693707 

Primary e-mail: ryan@whibbslaw.com 

Secondary email: darla@whibbslaw.com 

☒Charles M. Caldwell, II, Esq. 

FBN: 83528 

Primary e-mail: chase@whibbslaw.com 

Secondary e-mail: sadie@whibbslaw.com

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 71 Filed 04/20/21 Page 10 of 10