### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40322

L e x in g to n In s u r a n c e C o m p a n y , A s A s s ig n e e o f A n n M . W e lls P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. S .H .R .M . C a te r in gS e r v ic e s , In c . a/k/ a E u restSu pp ortServi ces D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore G A R W O O D , G A R Z A , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. G A R W O O D , C i rcui tJu dg e: Pl ai nt i f f

- appel l ant , Lexi ngt on I nsur ance C om pany ( Lexi ngt on) , as assi gn e e o f

Ann W e l l s (W e l l s ) , s ue d Def e nda nt
- ap pe l l e e , S. H
. R. M
. Cat e r i ng S e r v ic e s , In c ., a /k /a E u r e s t S u p p o r t S e r v ic e s ( E u r e s t), b a s e d u p o n inju r ie s W e lls
su stain ed w h i l e em p l oy e d by E u rest. E u rest fi l ed a R u l e 1 2 (b)( 6 ) m oti on to di sm i ss t h e sui t , argu i n g t h at t h e assi gn m en tw as i n vali d. Th e di st ri ctcourt gr ant e d t he m o t i o n a nd d i s m i s s e dL e x i ngt o n’ s c l ai m . Le xi ngt o n no w a ppe al s t he di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of E u rest ’ s m ot i on t o di sm i ss. For t h e f ol l ow i n g reaso n s, w e a f f i r m. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma y 4, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkSpecifically , We lls stated early on that aE urest co-worker was partlyrespo nsib le 1 fo r h erslipan d fallb yapp lyin ge xce ss waxt o th e fl oo r a n d failin gt o pl a ceawarnin gsi gn . She also stated that E urest employees h ad i mproperly stacked the boxes which fellan d in j ure d h er . Thisinfo rm ationwa s als o av ail ab leinth e a ccid ent re po rt s. 2 F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS B E L OW E u re st provi des cat eri n g an d j an i t ori alser vi ces f or of fshore ri gs. W el l s, a Eu r e s te m p l o y e e , wa s a s s i g n e d t o wo r k a s a co o k o n t h e M /V OCEA N LE XI N G TO N , a se m i s ubm e r s i bl e dr i l l i ng r i g o w ne d a nd o pe r at e d b y D i am o nd O ffsh ore D ri l l i n g S erv i ces, In c. (D i a m on d ). W ell s w a s i nj u red on tw o se p a ra te
o c c a s i o n s wh i l e wo r k i n g a b o a r d t h e OCEAN LE XI NGTON, o n c e a f t e r s he sl i pp ed an d fel l i n w et w ax i n a ha l l w ay an d a second t i m e af t er boxes f

el lon h er i n t he ves se l ’ s st or age ar ea. O n June 30, 2005, W el l s sue d D i am ond i n fede r al di s t r i c tc o ur tt o r e c o ve rf o rhe ri nj ur i e s . As W e l l s ’ s e m pl o ye r , Eur e s tha d a M as t erSer vi c e Agre em entw i t h D i am ond t hat r equi r ed Eu r es t ’ s C om m ercial G en eralL i abil i t y carri er, L exi n gton, t o defend and i n dem n i f y D i am on d ag ai n st W e lls ’ s cla im s . Fr o m t he b e gi nni ng, b o t h pa r t i e s ha d a c c ess to i nf o r m at i o n s ugg e s t i ng E u restshared l i abil i t y f or W el l s’ s i nj u ri es. H o w e ve r , W el l s di d n otna m e E u rest 1 i n he rs ui t , a nd Di am o nd d i d no tm o ve t o j o i n Eur e s ta s a t hi r d- pa r t y de fe nda nt
u n t i lA pri l18, 200 6, m ore t h an ni n e m on t h s af t er E u rest brou gh t sui tan d l ess t h an t w o m on t h s pri or t o t h e parti es’sett ri aldate. W ell s o p posed t h e m ot i on a s u n ti m ely, an d the distri ct cou rt dism i sse d the m oti on a s b ein g w i th ou t m erit. D i am o nd d i d no t at t e m pt t o ap pe alo ro t he r w i s e s e e k r e vi e w o f t he r ul i ng, b ut i n stea d rea ch ed a se ttl em en t ag ree m en t w i th W ell s. A s p a rt of the settl em en t, W e l l s a gr e e d t o a s s i gn t o L e xi ngt o n al lof hercl ai m s aga i ns tEur e s t
. D i am o nd
n ot i f i ed th e d istri ctcourtt h at a s et t l em en tha d been reached, an d the di st ri ct court di sm i ssed W el l s’ s c l ai m s agai n stD i am on d w i t h prej u di ce. Th e rel ease3

ag r e e m e ntdi d no tna m e E ur e s tam o ng t he re l e as e d par t i e s . La t e r , Le xi ngt o n, as W e l l s ’ s a s s i gne e , b r o ugh tt he pr e s e nts ui ta ga i ns tEur e s t
. Eur e s tf i l e d a
m o t i o n t o di s m i s s Le xi ngt o n’ s c l ai m s , a nd t he di s t r i c tc o ur tr ul e d t hatt he
as si gnm entof un l i qui dat ed pe r so nali nj ury c l ai m s w as i nval i d under fede r al
m a ritim e law a n d d ism iss e d L e x in g to n ’ s s u it p u rs u a n t t o R u le 1 2 (b )(6). L e x in g to n tim e ly file d th is a p p e a l. DI S CU S S I ON Lex i ngt o n a r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o urt erre d i n c o nc l udi ng t hatt he assi gn m en tof

W el l s’ s un l i qu i da t ed p ersonal inju ry cl ai m w as i n vali d u n der fe d e r a l m a r it i m e l a w a n d , t h u s , t h e c o u r tim p r o p e r ly d is m is s e d L e x in g t o n ’s
c l ai m s und e rRul e 1 2(b) ( 6)

. Di s m i s s al s und e rRul e 1 2(b) ( 6) a r e r e vi e w e d de
novo . I n r e Kat r i naCa na lBr e a c he s Li t ig. , 4 9 5 F .3 d 1 9 1 , 2 0 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). To sur vi ve a R ul e 1 2(b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di sm i ss , t he pl ai nt i f f m ustpl ead “ enough facts to state a cl a i m to rel i ef t h a t i s p l a u s ib l e on i ts fa ce.” B e l lAt l

. Cor p. v. Tw o m b ly , 1 2 7 S

. C t. 19 5 5 , 19 7 4 ( 2 0 0 7 ). “ F a ctu a lall eg a ti on s m u st be en ou gh to
r ai s e a r i ght t o r e l i e f ab o ve t he s pe c ul at i ve l e ve lo n t he a s s um pt i o n t hata l lt he al l egat i ons i n t he c om pl ai nt ar e t r ue ( eve n i f doubt f uli n fac t )

. ” I

d. at1965 (q u o t a t io n m a r k s , c it a t io n s , a n d fo o t n o t e o m it t e d ). B e c a u s e L e x in g t o n 's
com pl ai n t is p rem i sed on t h e perm i ssibi l i t y of an assi gn m en tof

un l i qu i da t ed p e r s o n a l inju r y cla im s , th is co u r t m u s t a ffir m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l if
s u c h a s s ig n m e n ts a r e in v a lid

. T h i s cou rt h a s n ot ye t a d d ress ed th e i ssu e of w h eth er su ch a s s ig n m en ts of un l i qu i da t ed tor tp e rs o n ali nj u ry cl ai m s are gen eral l y perm i ssibl e un der fede ra lm a ri ti m e l a w . In the ab sen ce of an y d i rect a u th ority, ad m i ra l ty cou rts
m a y l oo k to th e com m on l a w for gu i d a n ce . C a sino C r ui s e s I nv. Co. , L. C

. v. R aven s M

f g. Co. , 6 0 F
. Su pp . 2d 12 85, 128 7 (M
. D
. F l a. 199 9)

. U n der t h e com m on l aw and t he l aw o f m o s t s t at e s , “ pe r s o nali nj ur y c l ai m s a r e no ta s s i gna bl e a bs e nt4

a statu te to the con trary
. ” I d. Thi s c o m m o n l aw ba r w as i nt e nde d t o pr e ve ntt he “ev i l s of cha m p erty an d m a i n ten a n ce.” I d. ( quot i ng Hos

pi t alSer v. Cor

p. v. Penn syl van i a Ins. Co. , 1 0 1 R .I. 7 0 8 , 7 1 2 (1 9 6 7 )). Lex i ngt o n a r gue s , ho w e ve r , t hatc o nce r ns r e ga r di ng c ham pe r t y and
m ai nt enance ar e o ut dat ed and w i t hout m er i t

— as e vid enc ed bys t at e l aw excepti on s t o t h e com m on l aw prohibi t i on an d thi s c ou rt ’ s ap p ro v alof M ary C a r te rA g r e e m e n ts
. W h il e L e x i n g to n ’ s a r g u m e n t m a y h a v e s o m e m e r it, th is
c o ur tw i l l ge ne r al l y f o l l o w t he c o m m o n l aw b arunl e s s g o o d r e as o n i ns t r uc t s us oth erw i se. A n d , in th i s i n stan ce, fede ra lm a ri ti m e law pe rsu a d es th i s cou rt t o a d h e r e to th e co m m o n la w p r o h ib itio n o f s u c h a s s ig n m e n ts
. Th e pr opo r t i onat e l i abi l i t y f r am ew or k f

orge ner alm a ri ti m e t or tl aw , as e s t ab l i s he d i n McD e r m o t tI nc . v . Am Cl

y de , 114 S. C t
. 1 461 ( 199 4) , i s i n st ructive. U n d er th i s f

ra m ew ork , a tortfeas or i s u l ti m a tel y li a b l e on l y for h i s p rop ortion a te sh a re of fa u lt. I

d. a t 1 4 6 5
. In th e e v e n t o f s e tt le m e n t, a s e tt lin gto r tfe a s o ris presum ed to pa y on l y f or hi s proport i on ate l ia b il i t y, non - set t l i n g t ort feasors receive n o cr edi tf

or t h e a m ou n tp ai d by a set t l i n g t ort feasor, an d contribu t i on a c tio n s b y n o n -s e tt lin g to r tfe a s o r s a g a in s t a s e tt lin gto r tfe a s o ra r e b a r r e d

. I d.
a t 1 4 6 6 , 1 4 7 0

– 7 1
. I n O n d i m ar Tran sport es Mari t i m os v. B et ty S t ree t , 555 F
. 3d 184 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ), w e re ce n tlya d d re ss e d th e effe ct o f McD er m o tto n a s e t t li n gto r t fe a s o r ’s sui ng a n on -sett l i ng t or t feas orf orpr ope r t y dam age on t he bas i s of an assi gn m en to f

t he pr o pe r t y da m ag e c l ai m f r o m t he i nj ur e d p ar t y i n t he
s e t t l e m e nt
. W e no t e d t hatt he as s i gnm e ntw o ul d b e i nva l i d “ i f t he a s s i gnm e nt of p r ope r t y dam age t or tc l ai m s i s ei t her( a) ge ner al l y pr ohibi t ed byl aw or(b) g e n e ra ll y p e rm itted b y law b u t b a r r e d b y a p p li ca tion of McD er m o tta nd Mur phy [ v. Fl ori d a K

eys , 32 9 F
. 3 d 31 1 ( 1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 )] p ri n ci p l es.” Id

. at187.We noteth at in Ondimarth e inj ured partyan d th e co -tortfea sor was appar ently at 2 allrel ev antti mes subje ct toservice of pro cess b y the settlingtortfeasor . It i s tru e th at the settlingtortfeasorth ere was un der pressureto settlewithin 30 day s of deman d orbe precluded byth e relevanttariff under 46 U.S.C. § 4 050 1(f) fro m use of th e po rt facilities of th e in j ure d party . Id . at18 5-86 . However, nothingin Ondimarsugge sts that it co uld not have, fo r ex ample, brou ght adeclaratoryactionagain st th e inj ured partyan d co -tortfea sor, paying th e funds de mande d into the registryof the court oru nder protest or the like. 5 We d e c l i n e d t o d e c i d e “ w h e t h e rt h e a s s i g n me n to f p r o p e r t y d a ma g e t o r tc l a i ms a re g en era l l y p roh i b i ted , ” alt h ou gh w e ob serv ed tha t i t ap p ea red “m ost state
cou rts .
. . pe rm i t su ch ass i gn m en ts. ” Id

. W e s t a t e d i n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n t h a t“ we l oo k to th e com m on l a w a s a ‘ gu i d e t o i n terp reta ti on of fede ra la d m ir a lty pri nci pl es ’ , ” c i t i ng Cas i no Cr ui s e s I nv . Co. , L. C.

. I

d. at 18 7 n . 2
. W e w en t on to h ol d, how ever, t h at even i f t h e assi gn m en tof

property dam age tor tcl ai m s w ere g e n e r a lly p e r m itt e d , “t h e r e a r e g o o d r e a s o n s fo r im p o s in g c e r ta in lim ita tio n s in th e co n te x t of McD e r m o tt ’s pr op ortion a te fa u l t f ra m ew ork

. ” Id . a t 1 8 8
. W e h e ld t hat“ pe rm i t t i ng as s i gnm e ntund e rt he s e c i r c um s t anc e s w o ul d no tf ur t he rt he p rim a ry g o a ls o f McD er m o tt : ‘ consi st en cy w i t h t h e proporti on ate fau l tapp roach

. . . pr om ot i on o f

s et t l em ent , and j udi c i alec onom y, ’ ” quot i ng McD er m o tt , a nd

“ such assi gn m en t s w i l l l ead t o cost l i er, l on ger, an d m ore confusi n g sui t s, al lof
w h i ch w ou l d u n derm i n e McD e r m o tt ’s go a l of p rom oti n g jud i ci a lecon om y.” Id

. at189. W e t her ef

or e he l d: “ W e adopt t he r ul e f or t he ge ner alm ar i t i m e l aw t hat t he a s s i gnm e nto f

t o r tcl ai m s f

r o m t he i nj ur e d p ar t y t o o ne t o r t fe as o rpe r m i t t i ng th e se ttl i n g d efen d a n t t o p roce ed ag a i n st a co-tortfea sor is i n va l i d

. ” Id

. 2 O ndi m arco n tr o ls . U n d e rth e s e cir c u m s ta n c e s th e a s s ig n m e n t fr o m W e lls to L e x in g to n is in v a lid to a u th o r iz e th e la tt e r ’ s s u it a g a in s t E u r e s t. W e rec ogn i ze, as does O ndi m ar , see id

. at 188 n. 3, t h at w h ere t h e i nj u red pa r t y h a s r e l e a s e d n o to n l y t h e s e t t l i n gt o r t fe a s o rb u ta l s o t h e n o n - s e t t l i ng t o r t fe as o r , t hata n a c t i o n b y t he s e t t l i ng t o r t fe as o ra ga i ns tt he no n- s e t t l i ng6

t o r t fe as o rf

o rc o nt r ibut i o n i s l e s s i nc o ns i s t e ntw i t h McD e r m o tt ’s go al s t han t he
s i t uat i o n pr e s e nt e d i n t he pr e s e ntc as e , a nd i n O ndi m ar , w h ere t h e i nj u red pa r t y ne ve rr e l e as ed t he no n- s e t t l i ng t o r t fe as o r . On t he o t he rha nd, t he McD er m o tta d v a n ta g e s o f ju d ic ia l e c o n o m y a n d c l e a r e rp r e s e n ta tio n a r g u e in fav o ro f ha vi ng pr o po r t i o nat e faul ta nd t he e xt e nto f da m ag e s de t e r m i ne d i n o ne p r o c e e d in g w ith a ll r e le v a n t p a r tie s p r e s e n t, a t lea s t w h e r e th a t is r e a s o n a b ly possi bl e. L exi n gton al so argues t h at f ederal m ari t i m e l aw au t h ori zi n g t h e use of M ary C art er A greem en t s s u pp ort s t h e enfor cem en tof t h e W el ls- L exi n gton assi gn m en t
. Lex i n gton argu es t h at, w h i l e i t s assi g n m e n t is not i t sel f a M ary C ar t eragr ee m ent , t her e i s no m at er i aldi st i nct i on be tw ee n the as si gnm entat is s u e a n d th o s e co n ta in e d in M a r y C a r te ra g r e e m e n ts , w h ic h h a v e fr e q u e n tly b e e n a p p r o v e d b y th e co u r t. T h is a r g u m e n t, h o w e v e r , is u n p e r s u a s iv e . W hi l e M ar y Car t e r Agr e e m e nt s be ar s o m e r e s e m bl anc e t o a n a s s i gnm e nt of u nl i qui dat ed per so nali nj ury c l ai m s, t he t w o a r e q ui t e di st i nct
. Thi s c our thas de f i n e d M a r y Ca r t e r Ag r e e m e n t s g e n e r a l l y a s “ a s e c r e t c o n t r a c t b e t we e n t he p la in tiff

a n d o n e o f s e v e r a l d e fe n d a n ts w h e r e b y th e co n tr a c tin gd e fe n d a n t w ill
se t t l e w i t h t he pl ai nt i f f be f or e t r i al , bu t m u st r em ai n i n t he s ui t , and w i l lbe rei m bu rsed t o som e speci f i c degree f

rom t h e pl ai n t i f

f ’ s r ecovery f

rom t h e ot h er d efen d a n ts. ” McD an i elv. A n h euser- B u sch, I n c. , 987 F
. 2d 298 , 3 09 n
. 49 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 3 ); s e e , e . g. , Bas s v . Pho e nixSe adr i l l /78, Lt d. , 7 49 F
. 2d 115 4, 115 6 ( 5th C i r. 1985) ;Wi l ki n s v. P
. M
. B
. S ys. E ng’ g, I n c. , 7 4 1 F .2d 7 9 5 , 7 9 6

– 9 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 4 ). Lexi ngt on f

i nds faul tw i t h t hi s c ou rt’ s c harac t er i zat i on o f s uch A gr ee m ent s as rei m bu rsem en t s, an d corr ect l y poi n t s ou ttha tt h i s c ou rtha s f requ en t l y ref

erred to su ch A gr ee m en ts a s “assign m en ts. ” S e e , e.g ., B ass , 7 4 9 F .2 d a t 1 1 5 8 ; Wi l ki ns , 741 F
. 2d a t7 98. B u tL exi n gton fai l s t o rec ogn i ze t h at M ary C art er A greem en t s,
r at he rt han i nvo l vi ng t he a s s i gnm e nto f a n e nt i r e c l ai m , e m bo dyo nl y t heThis co urt does not spe ak tocircumstances whichwoul d le ave aparty without a 3 remedyto liti gate the matter as asin gl e ca se, e.g . circumstances in whicha thir d party was no t subje ct topro cess durin g the initialsuit. 7 assi gn m en tof

a parti al i n t erest i n a pl ai n t i f f ’ s recover y. Fu n da m en t al l y, t h ey ar e b es tc harac t er i ze d as a r ei m burs em ent , r equi r i ng a se t t l i ng def endant t o pay t he pl ai nt i f

f a c e r t ai n s um ( o f

t e n t o he l p f

i nanc e t he s ui t ) , bo t h pa r t i e s r e m ai ni ng i n t h e act i on , an d i f

t h e pl ai n t i f

f i s s u cces sf

u l , t h e set t l i n g defenda n ti s enti t l ed to a p o r t io n o f an y re co v e ry (or a n y ov e r a sta te d a m o u n t) th a t th e p la in tiff
r e c e iv e s fr o m th e n o n -s e tt lin gd e fe n d a n t. In t h e case at han d, t h e W e ll s-L e xi n gton assi gn m en t , un l i ke a M ary C ar t er Ag r e e m e nt , i nv o l v e s t he a s s i g nm e nt o f a n e nt i r e c l a i m , no t s i m p l y a pa r t i ali nt e r e s ti n W e l l s ’ s ul t i m at e r e c o ve r y f r o m Eur est
. I tr e qui r e s a s e c o nd l awsui t , i n whi c h Le xi ngt o n m us ta c ta s a s ur r o ga t e pl ai nt i f f a nd l i t i ga t e t he
c l ai m s o f an i ndi vi dua lw ho i s e nt i r e l y ab s e ntf r o m t he s ui t
. Thi s a bs e nc e o f t he i nj u red pa rt y is a f

u n da m en t aldi st i n ct i on betw een t h i s assi gn m en tan d those i n vo l ve d in M a ry C a rter A gr ee m en ts, w h ere th e p l a i n ti ff re m a i n s to pr ose cu te h i s ow n cl ai m s. See B ass , 7 4 9 F
. 2 d a t 1 1 5 6 ; Wi l ki ns , 741 F
. 2d at 7 98
. Al l o w i ng t h i s f orm of separate act i on f

or c on t ribu t i on or i n dem n i t y, even w h en sup ported by an as si gnm ent , notonl y under m i nes t he pr opo r t i on a te l i abi l i t y r ul e a s e s t ab l i s he d i n Mc D e r m o tt , bu ti tal so i gn ores t h e val u e of ha vi n g al lparti es b e fo r e th e co u r t s im u lta n e o u s ly in a s in g le ca s e . L e x in g to n cla im s , h o w e v e r , th a t t h e r e w a s n o o p p o r tu n ity to h a n d le W el l s’ s c l ai m s i n a si n gl e case w i t h al lres pon sibl e parti es s i m u l t an eou sl y bef ore t he c our t
. Thi s ar gum enti s i nco r r ec t
. U ndert he pr es entfac t s, a r em edy w as a v a il a b le to L e x in g t o n in th e fo r m o f a R u le 1 4 (c ) jo i n d e rm o t io n . W e ll s ’s 3
c om pl ai nt w as f

i l ed agai nst D i am ond on June 30, 2005. E ar l y o n, Lexi ngt on w as awar e t hatEur e s tm i ghts har e r e s po ns i bi l i t y f o rW e l l s ’ s i nj uri es an d had t heLexington also argues that this co urt should c onsi der making anexceptio n to the 4 common law p rohibition on assignments of person al inj urycl aims. Inparticular, Lexington points to DeSen ne v. James to wn BoatYard, I nc. , 7 8 1 F
. Supp . 8 6 6(D.R .I
. 1 9 9 1 ), where the Rhode Isl and district co urt uph eld the assignment of a mariti me per sonal inj ury clai m. We find this case unp ersua sivebe cau se th e a ssign ment was uph eld und er extraordin arycircumstances. I n DeSen ne , th e a ssignor wa s att emptin g to r ene geonth e assignment shemadeaft er asettl ementagreement h ad alrea dy bee n reached betwee n the assigneean d th e re maining tortfeasor . Undoubtedly, applying th e co mmon l aw b ar in that instance would have re sulte d inextreme inj usticebyallowin g a j oint to rtfeaso r toremain liableto a tort victim after believing it self to h ave b eenrel eased from all liabilitythrough a se ttl em ent agre em ent m adewit h anothe r party. 8 op p ortu n i ty to f

i l e a ti m ely R u l e 14 (c) m oti on to j oin E u rest a s a co -defen d a n t. U nf or t unate l y, Lexi ngt on di d notf i l e i t s R ul e 14( c ) m ot i on u nt i lA pri l , 18, 2006, l ess than t w o m o nt hs pr i o rt o t he pa r t i e s ’s e tt r i alda t e . W e l l s o ppo s e d t he
m ot i on , obj ect i n g t o i t s u n t i m el i n ess, a m on g ot h er t h i n gs, an d the di st ri ctcourt d is m is s e d th e m o tio n a s b e in g w ith o u t m e r it. H a d L e x in g to n tim e ly file d a R u le 14 ( c ) m o t i o n, Eur e s tco ul d hav e be e n j o i ne d as a c o - de fe nda nt , t he r e bypl ac i ng al lj oi nt t or t feas or s bef or e t he c our ts i m ul t aneous l y. 4

CO NC L US I ON Fort he f

o r e go i ng r e as o ns , w e ho l d t hatt he W e l l s - Lex i ngt o n a s s i gnm e nt i s i nva l i d a nd, t hus , t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s Fe br uar y 28 , 2 00 8 o r de rdi s m i s s i ng t he
s u it is AF F I RMED.