Nautronix Inc., Nautronix Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London
Published: Jul. 22, 2000 | Result Date: Mar. 31, 2000 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 721820 Bench Decision – $0
Judge
Court
San Diego Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Joseph T. Anastasi
(technical)
Christopher Jenman
(technical)
William D. O'Connell
(technical)
Bennett S. Bibel
(technical)
Defendant
Brian Steege
(technical)
Alan J. Cox
(technical)
W. Keith Wyatt
(Ivie, McNeill, Wyatt, Purcell, Diggs, APLC)
(technical)
Graydon S. Staring
(technical)
John Michael Kelly
(technical)
John Berryman
(technical)
Walter M. Caskey
(technical)
Pierre S. Krouse
(technical)
Robert H. Wallace
(technical)
Facts
Plaintiffs Nautronix Ltd. and Nautronix Inc., manufacture dynamic positioning systems and other products for
use by seagoing vessels. In 1992, Nautronix entered into a contract with a Brazilian company, Schahin Cury, to
provide a dynamic positioning system for Schahin CuryÆs drillship, the S.C. Lancer.
The Lancer was insured by underwriters at LloydÆs, London. In 1993, there was an accident involving the
Lancer. LloydÆs paid Schahin Cury for the loss and through its counsel in Houstond sued Nautronix in a
subrogation lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas. Nautronix eventually won the Texas lawsuit on summary
judgment based on the District CourtÆs interpretation of a waiver of subrogation clause in the insurance policy.
The District Court found that the waiver of subrogation applied to Nautronix, and that therefore LloydÆs had
waived its right to sue Nautronix in subrogation.
Nautronix also claimed that it was insured under the terms of the policy. Nautronix then filed suit against
LloydÆs in San Diego Superior Court, alleging malicious prosecution, breach of contract and several related
torts based on LloydÆs Texas lawsuit against Nautronix.
Nautronix argued that based on the waiver of subrogation clause in the policy, LloydÆs could not reasonably
have believed it could lawfully file a lawsuit against Nautronix. Nautronix also alleged it was an additional
insured under the Schahin Cury policy. Nautronix asserted several theories of damages purportedly caused by
the Texas lawsuit, including attorney fees and costs relating to the Texas lawsuit, damage to NautronixÆ stock
price due to publicity about the Texas lawsuit, and loss of customers who purportedly feared a loss in the Texas
lawsuit could cripple Nautronix financially.
Lloyds disputed all of NautronixÆ claims.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs demanded $50 million. The defendants made no offer.
Other Information
The summary judgment was granted approximately one year and nine months after the case was filed. Nautronix has filed its notice of appeal
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390