Although action for maintenance and cure arises under the general maritime law, the courts have not definitively determined that it is strictly governed by the three-year Uniform Statute. Thus the action for maintenance and cure is still governed by laches, but litigants can expect the court to treat the three-year time limit as a benchmark for laches; the burden of proof will be on the plaintiff to show his delay was reasonable and did not prejudice the defendant. Armstrong v. Trico Marine, Inc., 923 F.2d 55 (5th Cir.1991). Although the doctrine of laches applies to suits for maintenance and cure, serial suits to collect benefits as they accrue are permitted. Cooper v. Diamond M Co., 799 F.2d 176 (5th Cir.1986); Pelotto v. L & N Towing Co., 604 F.2d 396, 401 (5th Cir.1979).
Congress, in codifying 46 U.S.C.A. § 30508, formerly at 46 U.S.C.A. § 183b, has expressly authorized the parties to a contract of carriage to agree to a shorter time period than provided in 46 U.S.C.A. § 30106. As a practical matter, commercial carriers who transport passengers for a fee, cruise lines, and those engaged in hiring vessels invariably include the one-year limitation period in their passenger contracts (tickets) as authorized by the statute. However, many maritime accidents arise in contexts where the tortfeasor, because of the circumstances, is not able to take advantage of the provisions of 46 U.S.C.A. § 30508. This is the case often in recreational boating situations and is particularly apt when a products liability claim is advanced. Thus, the three-year period specified in 46 U.S.C.A. § 30106 may be applicable.