Opinion ID: 557231
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Agency Status of Independent Marine Broker

Text: 31 Albany argues that the district court improperly interpreted the scope of the Edgar Coco Agency's authority. Albany cites a comment the district court judge made during trial: 32 To begin with, it appears to me that the boat owner, Anh Thi Kieu, has been somewhat taken advantage of and has suffered a great deal as a result of her experience as boat owner of the STACY MARIE ... The Court feels that under the circumstances and considering the owner, [Ms.] Kieu that they [Albany] were not being exactly fair with her and they were being super technical. 33 Record Vol. III, at 205-07. Albany suggests that the district court inferred in these remarks that Anh Thi Kieu's misrepresentations, if any, were a result of the Edgar Coco Agency's strongarm tactics and that Albany ultimately is responsible for these tactics because the Coco Agency was its agent. Even if such vicarious liability were improper under Texas law--a questionable proposition 11 --we cannot conclude that Albany's interpretation of the district court's comment accurately reflects the court's intent. It is equally possible that the district court's remarks express frustration with Albany's super technical denial of Anh Thi Kieu's claim, rather than with the Edgar Coco Agency's abuse of its relationship with the plaintiff. 34 If harmful error, a district court's remarks during a bench trial certainly can necessitate reversal. Clearly, however, the idle remarks of the court during trial do not implicate the rights of the parties as much as the court's final decision. On appeal, the focus of our review of a bench trial remains the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. As Albany concedes, the findings of fact and conclusions of law do not reflect that the district court imposed on Albany any responsibility for the actions of the Edgar Coco Agency. On the contrary, the findings of fact and conclusions of law quite unmistakably suggest that, if there were any overbearing or belligerent acts in the period before the denial of Anh Thi Kieu's claim, they were Albany's. The district court's remarks at trial are not inconsistent with this conclusion.