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 

MASTER ANSWER AND

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF

DIRECT PROPERTY DAMAGE 

CLAIMANTS

ADMIRALTY RULE 9(H)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

3:20-CV-05980 – RV / MJF

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 

LACEY COLLIER

CLAIMANTS.

FIRST AMENDED MASTER ANSWER OF DIRECT PROPERTY 

DAMAGE CLAIMANTS TO COMPLAINTS FOR EXONERATION OR 

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 

This pleading relates to the Direct Damages Cases consolidated in 3:20-cv5980, [Doc. 9] and those Complaints subsequently filed. All cases consolidated in 

3:20-cv-5980 and filed subsequently are listed below for completeness with a 

distinction made between limitation actions based on construction barge impact with 

public or private property and other construction barge impact with the Pensacola 

Bay Bridge.

This Amended Master Answer incorporates those additional claimants who 

have previously filed short form joinders and those who may subsequently file short 

form joinders.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1165 Filed 05/21/21 Page 1 of 16
Type of Claim Barge # Case

Bridge KS 5531 3:20-cv-5980

Bridge 460007 3:20-CV-5981

Bridge CBR 758 3:20-RV-5982

Bridge KS 6011 3:20-CV-5983

Unknown1 450020 3:21-CV-00526

Direct KS 6010 3:20-CV-5984

Direct 470037 3:21-CV-0044

Direct M 8026 3:21-CV-0045

Direct KS 1453 3:21-CV-0047

Direct KS 4004 3:21-CV-0048

Direct KS 4015 3:21-CV-0050

Direct KS 5533 3:21-CV-0051

Direct 460005 3:21-CV-0052

Direct 470027 3:21-CV-0053

Direct KS 6013 3:21-CV-0054

Direct 471205 3:21-CV-0055

Direct M8002 3:21-CV-00562

Direct M 8021 3:21-CV-00573

Direct U 1511 3:21-CV-0058

Direct U 1506 3:21-CV-0060

Direct U 1505 3:21-CV-0061

1 The March 26, 2021 Exoneration and Limitation Complaints by Skanska [Cases 

521-527] were not originally consolidated under the lead case, 3:21-CV-5980, 

pursuant to this Court’s Order consolidating all claims. This First Amended 

Master Answer of Direct Property Damage Claimants is filed, in part, to 

incorporate the Answers of any claimants who may assert a claim based on damage 

arising from those barges listed in those subsequently filed complaints. Upon 

information and belief these barges are believed to have caused damage to the 

fishing pier and the bridge. However, Skanska has not identified any specific point 

of impact, notice or claimants. 

2 The Skanska Exoneration and Limitation Complaint at 3:21-CV-00056 [Doc. 1] 

lists Barge KS 6013, however, the three attachments [Doc. 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3] 

concern Barge M 8002. 

3 The Skanska Exoneration and Limitation Complaint at 3:21-CV-00057 omits 

Brown and Adams as potential claimants impacted by Barge M 8021, however, it 

is believed the Brown and Adams claimants were impacted by Barge M8021.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1165 Filed 05/21/21 Page 2 of 16
Direct M 8033 3:21-CV-00624

Direct5 MCD 360 3:21-CV-0063

Unknown6 M8030 3:21-CV-0521

Unknown M8015 3:21-CV-0523

Unknown KS 1451 3:21-CV-0524

Unknown M8034 3:21-CV-0525

Unknown 471206 3:21-CV-0527

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

without limitation, Claimants’ right to pursue their claims in state court pursuant to 

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

Claimants respond to the identical, individual Paragraphs of the Complaints for 

Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability filed in the Consolidated Claims as set 

4 The Skanska Exoneration and Limitation Complaint at 3:21-CV-00062 includes 

Brown and Adams as potential claimants impacted by Barge M 8033, however, it 

is believed the Brown and Adams claimants were impacted by Barge M8021.

5 The original Master Answer contained a scrivener’s error resulting in the 

inadvertent omission of MCD 360 from the table of cases and barges consolidated 

under 3:20-CV-5980, the Lead Case. However, the Short Form Joinder for Direct 

Damage claimants, included as an Exhibit to the Master Claim for Direct Damages 

[Doc. 59], did include that barge and case. This Amended Master Answer is filed, 

in part, to remedy that omission.

6 The March 26, 2021 Complaints are unique in that they lack paragraph 8 included 

in previous exoneration and limitation complaints related to Direct Property 

Damage. Paragraph 8 identified the potential claimants, if any, from whom 

Skanska had received a notice of claim. For that reason, this Amended Master 

Answer has a superfluous paragraph as to these last 6 Complaints. To address this 

numbering discrepancy, the paragraph to which the Claimants are propounding an 

Answer is identified in each paragraph following number 7 herein. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1165 Filed 05/21/21 Page 3 of 16
forth above with respect to direct damage claims, upon information and belief, as 

follows:

1. Admitted only that the Petitioner claims jurisdiction of this Court for 

their Limitation of Liability Complaint. It is denied that Petitioner, or any other 

party responsible for Claimants’ losses, is entitled to any limitation of their liability 

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

for the disposition of Claimants’ claims against Petitioner and any other party 

responsible for Claimants’ damages is more properly suited in the Circuit Court of 

the First Judicial Circuit in and for Escambia County, Florida.

2. Claimants lack 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, Claimants deny Petitioners’ 

characterization of the construction barges as “vessels” as that term applies to 46 

USC § 30505 of the Limitation of Shipowners’ Liability Act, Supplemental Rule F, 

or any other basis upon which Petitioners assert admiralty or maritime jurisdiction. 

Maritime law does not apply. The construction barges/work platforms at issue in this 

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

used, as a means of transportation on water”; they have no means of self-propulsion 

and lack other characteristics typically associated with “vessels.” These work 

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

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1165 Filed 05/21/21 Page 4 of 16
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 Claimants’ property and the bridge 

itself, although extremely disruptive to the Claimants and land-based commerce in 

general, 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. Claimants deny 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. 

6. The allegations contained in Paragraph 6 are denied.

7. The allegations contained in Paragraph 7 are denied. 

8. Claimants admit that Skanska has been sent and has received notices of 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1165 Filed 05/21/21 Page 5 of 16
claims related to some construction barges and that other claims, including state 

court complaints, may have been previously filed. All other allegations contained 

in this paragraph are denied. This paragraph responds to Paragraph 8 of the 

Complaints asserted in 3:20-CV-5984, 3:21-CV-0044; 3:21-CV-0045, 3:21-CV0047, 3:21-CV-0048, 3:21-CV-0050, 3:21-CV-0051, 3:21-CV-0052, 3:21-CV0053, 3:21-CV-0054, 3:21-CV-0055, 3:21-CV-0056, 3:21-CV-0057, 3:21-CV0058, 3:21-CV-0060, 3:21-CV-0061, 3:21-CV-0062, and 3:21-CV-0063. The 

Complaints asserted by Skanska in 3:21-CV-0521, 3:21-CV-0523, 3:21-CV-0524, 

3:21-CV-0525, 3:21-CV-0526 and 3:21-CV-0527 did not contain this allegation and 

no answer is necessary. 

9. The allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. This paragraph 

responds to Paragraph 9 of the Complaints asserted in 3:20-CV-5984, 3:21-CV0044; 3:21-CV-0045, 3:21-CV-0047, 3:21-CV-0048, 3:21-CV-0050, 3:21-CV0051, 3:21-CV-0052, 3:21-CV-0053, 3:21-CV-0054, 3:21-CV-0055, 3:21-CV0056, 3:21-CV-0057, 3:21-CV-0058, 3:21-CV-0060, 3:21-CV-0061, 3:21-CV0062, and 3:21-CV-0063. This paragraph responds to paragraph 8 of the Complaints 

asserted by Skanska in 3:21-CV-0521, 3:21-CV-0523, 3:21-CV-0524, 3:21-CV0525, 3:21-CV-0526 and 3:21-CV-0527. 

10. The allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. This paragraph 

responds to Paragraph 10 of the Complaints asserted in 3:20-CV-5984, 3:21-CVCase 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1165 Filed 05/21/21 Page 6 of 16
0044; 3:21-CV-0045, 3:21-CV-0047, 3:21-CV-0048, 3:21-CV-0050, 3:21-CV0051, 3:21-CV-0052, 3:21-CV-0053, 3:21-CV-0054, 3:21-CV-0055, 3:21-CV0056, 3:21-CV-0057, 3:21-CV-0058, 3:21-CV-0060, 3:21-CV-0061, 3:21-CV0062, and 3:21-CV-0063. This paragraph responds to paragraph 9 of the Complaints 

asserted by Skanska in 3:21-CV-0521, 3:21-CV-0523, 3:21-CV-0524, 3:21-CV0525, 3:21-CV-0526 and 3:21-CV-0527. 

11. The allegations contained in this paragraph are denied for lack of 

sufficient information to justify a belief therein. This paragraph responds to 

Paragraph 11 of the Complaints asserted in 3:20-CV-5984, 3:21-CV-0044; 3:21-

CV-0045, 3:21-CV-0047, 3:21-CV-0048, 3:21-CV-0050, 3:21-CV-0051, 3:21-CV0052, 3:21-CV-0053, 3:21-CV-0054, 3:21-CV-0055, 3:21-CV-0056, 3:21-CV0057, 3:21-CV-0058, 3:21-CV-0060, 3:21-CV-0061, 3:21-CV-0062, and 3:21-CV0063. This paragraph responds to paragraph 10 of the Complaints asserted by 

Skanska in 3:21-CV-0521, 3:21-CV-0523, 3:21-CV-0524, 3:21-CV-0525, 3:21-CV0526 and 3:21-CV-0527.

12. The allegations contained in this paragraph are denied for lack of 

sufficient information to justify a belief therein. This paragraph responds to 

Paragraph 12 of the Complaints asserted in 3:20-CV-5984, 3:21-CV-0044; 3:21-

CV-0045, 3:21-CV-0047, 3:21-CV-0048, 3:21-CV-0050, 3:21-CV-0051, 3:21-CV0052, 3:21-CV-0053, 3:21-CV-0054, 3:21-CV-0055, 3:21-CV-0056, 3:21-CVCase 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1165 Filed 05/21/21 Page 7 of 16
0057, 3:21-CV-0058, 3:21-CV-0060, 3:21-CV-0061, 3:21-CV-0062, and 3:21-CV0063. This paragraph responds to paragraph 11 of the Complaints asserted by 

Skanska in 3:21-CV-0521, 3:21-CV-0523, 3:21-CV-0524, 3:21-CV-0525, 3:21-CV0526 and 3:21-CV-0527.

13. The allegations contained in this paragraph are denied for lack of 

sufficient information to justify a belief therein. This paragraph responds to 

Paragraph 13 of the Complaints asserted in 3:20-CV-5984, 3:21-CV-0044; 3:21-

CV-0045, 3:21-CV-0047, 3:21-CV-0048, 3:21-CV-0050, 3:21-CV-0051, 3:21-CV0052, 3:21-CV-0053, 3:21-CV-0054, 3:21-CV-0055, 3:21-CV-0056, 3:21-CV0057, 3:21-CV-0058, 3:21-CV-0060, 3:21-CV-0061, 3:21-CV-0062, and 3:21-CV0063. This paragraph responds to paragraph 12 of the Complaints asserted by 

Skanska in 3:21-CV-0521, 3:21-CV-0523, 3:21-CV-0524, 3:21-CV-0525, 3:21-CV0526 and 3:21-CV-0527.

14. The allegations contained in this paragraph are denied for lack of 

sufficient information to justify a belief therein. This paragraph responds to 

Paragraph 14 of the Complaints asserted in 3:20-CV-5984, 3:21-CV-0044; 3:21-

CV-0045, 3:21-CV-0047, 3:21-CV-0048, 3:21-CV-0050, 3:21-CV-0051, 3:21-CV0052, 3:21-CV-0053, 3:21-CV-0054, 3:21-CV-0055, 3:21-CV-0056, 3:21-CV0057, 3:21-CV-0058, 3:21-CV-0060, 3:21-CV-0061, 3:21-CV-0062, and 3:21-CV0063. This paragraph responds to paragraph 13 of the Complaints asserted by 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1165 Filed 05/21/21 Page 8 of 16
Skanska in 3:21-CV-0521, 3:21-CV-0523, 3:21-CV-0524, 3:21-CV-0525, 3:21-CV0526 and 3:21-CV-0527.

15. The allegations contained in this paragraph are denied for lack of 

sufficient information to justify a belief therein. This paragraph responds to 

Paragraph 15 of the Complaints asserted in 3:20-CV-5984, 3:21-CV-0044; 3:21-

CV-0045, 3:21-CV-0047, 3:21-CV-0048, 3:21-CV-0050, 3:21-CV-0051, 3:21-CV0052, 3:21-CV-0053, 3:21-CV-0054, 3:21-CV-0055, 3:21-CV-0056, 3:21-CV0057, 3:21-CV-0058, 3:21-CV-0060, 3:21-CV-0061, 3:21-CV-0062, and 3:21-CV0063. This paragraph responds to paragraph 14 of the Complaints asserted by 

Skanska in 3:21-CV-0521, 3:21-CV-0523, 3:21-CV-0524, 3:21-CV-0525, 3:21-CV0526 and 3:21-CV-0527.

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.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1165 Filed 05/21/21 Page 9 of 16
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST DEFENSE

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

all times pertinent herein the construction barges were operated in a willful, wanton, 

and reckless manner or, in the alternative, the conduct and actions which led to 

Claimants’ claims 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 construction barges were 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.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1165 Filed 05/21/21 Page 10 of 16
THIRD DEFENSE

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, Claimants assert 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 Claimants’ 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-LC-HTC Document 1165 Filed 05/21/21 Page 11 of 16
SEVENTH DEFENSE

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

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

be responsible.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

Upon information and belief, there was insurance coverage on the 

construction barges insuring Petitioners in the event of an occurrence such as that 

which is the subject of Claimants’ 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

Claimants reserve the right to contest the appraisal value of the construction 

barges, 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 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1165 Filed 05/21/21 Page 12 of 16
value of appurtenances, attachments, equipment, freight and/or cargo aboard the 

construction barges, subject to the control of and/or owned by the Petitioners.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

The Complaint should be dismissed as the construction barges were not

“seagoing vessels” within the definition of maritime and/or admiralty law because it 

was a working platform.

TWELFTH 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 

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

herein.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

Claimants state 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.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1165 Filed 05/21/21 Page 13 of 16
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

In filing this Claim and Answer, Claimants specifically reserve 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 Claimants are not 

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

FIFTHTEENTH DEFENSE

Claimants specifically reserve 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.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

Claimants specifically reserve 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.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1165 Filed 05/21/21 Page 14 of 16
RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL

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

whether in this Court or State Court action.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Thomas F. Gonzalez 

THOMAS F. GONZALEZ

FL Bar #173878 

tfg@beggslane.com

J. NIXON DANIEL, III

FL Bar # 228761

jnd@beggslane.com

Beggs & Lane, RLLP

501 Commendencia Street 

Pensacola, Florida 32502

Office: (850) 432-2451

and

/s/ E. Samuel Geisler

BRYAN F. AYLSTOCK, FL Bar # 78263

E. SAMUEL GEISLER, FL Bar # 83817

Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC

17 East Main Street, Second floor

Pensacola, Florida 32502

Office: (850) 202-1010

Fax: (850) 916-7449

Email Service: sgeisler@awkolaw.com

 baylstock@awkolaw.com

 sallyteam@awkolaw.com

and

/s/ Brian H. Barr

Brian H. Barr FL Bar 493041

Emmanuella J. Paulos FL Bar 99010

Levin Papantonio Rafferty Proctor 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1165 Filed 05/21/21 Page 15 of 16
Buchanan O’Brien Barr & Mougey, P.A.

316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600

Pensacola, FL 32502

Tel.: (850) 435-7000

bbarr@levinlaw.com

epaulos@levinlaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 18th day of May 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. 

/s/ Thomas F. Gonzalez

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1165 Filed 05/21/21 Page 16 of 16