Opinion ID: 2639484
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Horton may sue MSS.

Text: MSS first argues that Horton should not have been allowed to sue his company.... It claims that Horton was in complete control of MSS, effectively his alter ego,  and that therefore any negligence is imputed to Horton. It also asserts that [a]n individual who is owner of a vessel cannot sue himself to recover for any of the tort maritime remedies. MSS moved for summary judgment on this issue, but the trial court denied the motion. We consider the issue de novo and view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. [4] It is uncontested that MSS is an Alaska corporation. As such, it can sue and be sued in its corporate name. [5] Drawing the facts in the light most favorable to Horton, MSS had significant assets, was insured against losses, employed several individuals, filed corporate tax returns, [and] held itself out as a bona fide corporation.... As a closely held corporation, MSS had only two people on its board of directors: Horton and his mother Gerda. Gerda Horton is the majority shareholder. [6] She controls the election of directors and has the authority to appoint and discharge the president of the corporation. Horton and Gerda also jointly own Horton Marine, Inc. [7] Horton Marine holds title to the tug SOLUTION. The other vessel involved in the accident in this case, Barge 204, was owned by Rasmussen Equipment Company. At the time of the accident, both boats were leased by bareboat charter to MSS; MSS has conceded that it was, at the time of the incident, owner pro hac vice of both vessels. Thus, MSS is an Alaska corporation that was owner of the vessels at the time of the accident. Because MSS is a corporation and was the owner of the vessels, there is no support for MSS's assertion that an officer may not sue in tort the corporation for which he or she works. Indeed, MSS concedes this point: [MSS] has not found any case in which the claims of an individual have been denied against a corporation because he was president, chief executive officer, director and a major shareholder.... It is well-established that the corporate entity is distinct although all or a majority of its stock is owned by a single individual or corporation, or although the corporation is a so-called `family' or `close' corporation. [8] This holds equally true in maritime cases. In Stewart v. Moore, for example, a federal district court dismissed claims against the sole stockholder and president of the corporation on the basis that the corporate entity was the owner of the vessel and therefore the proper defendant. [9] In general, the corporate identity will be disregarded only when the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist. [10] Relevant factors for considering whether a corporation is merely an alter ego are commingling of funds and assets, undercapitalization, and failure to observe corporate formalities. [11] Here, Horton is not the majority shareholder, and there has been no evidence that he commingled funds or assets, undercapitalized MSS, or failed to observe the necessary formalities. The corporate entity remains distinct, and there is little evidence to suggest MSS was Horton's alter ego. MSS is a corporation, and it may not disavow its own status when convenient or in order to avoid litigation. [12] The trial court's denial of summary judgment to MSS on this point is affirmed.