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 

ANSWER AND

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF

CITY OF GULF BREEZE,

a Florida municipal corporation

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 AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF CITY OF GULF BREEZE 

TO COMPLAINT FOR EXONERATION OR LIMITATION OF

LIABILITY WITH RESERVATION OF RIGHTS TO PROCEED IN 

STATE COURT

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

without limitation, Claimant’s 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, Claimant, 

CITY OF GULF BREEZE, responds to the identical, individual Paragraphs of the 

Complaints for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability filed in the Consolidated 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 649 Filed 04/29/21 Page 1 of 11
2

Claims, 3:20-CV-05980, 3:20-CV-05981, 3:20-CV-05982, and 3:20-CV-05983, 

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-MW-MJF Document 649 Filed 04/29/21 Page 2 of 11
3

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. The allegations contained in Paragraph 8 are denied.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 649 Filed 04/29/21 Page 3 of 11
4

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.

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, KS 5531, 460007, CBR 758, and 

KS 6011 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 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 649 Filed 04/29/21 Page 4 of 11
5

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 KS 5531, 460007, CBR 758, and KS 6011 

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.

THIRD DEFENSE

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

be granted.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 649 Filed 04/29/21 Page 5 of 11
6

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-MW-MJF Document 649 Filed 04/29/21 Page 6 of 11
7

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 KS 5531, 460007, CBR 758, and KS 6011 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, KS 5531, 460007, CBR 758, and KS 6011 including the working platforms’

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

security.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 649 Filed 04/29/21 Page 7 of 11
8

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 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 KS 5531, 

460007, CBR 758, and KS 6011 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 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 649 Filed 04/29/21 Page 8 of 11
9

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.

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 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 649 Filed 04/29/21 Page 9 of 11
10

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

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

MARY JANE BASS

FL Bar # 0064858

mjb@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

Case 3:20-cv-05980-MW-MJF Document 649 Filed 04/29/21 Page 10 of 11
11

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 

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 29th day of April 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-MW-MJF Document 649 Filed 04/29/21 Page 11 of 11