Latest News

Summary Judgment Granted on Ratification of Seaman's Release

In August 2006, Plaintiff Kirk Hogle allegedly sustained a right knee injury while working aboard the F/T ARICA, a commercial fish processing vessel owned and operated by Arica Fishing Company, LLC. Plaintiff finished his contract, and ultimately underwent surgery and treatment for a torn meniscus when he returned home in November 2006. Plaintiff’s treating physician released him to return to work, without restriction, as of February 5, 2007.

In January 2007, Plaintiff contacted Defendant Arica Fishing Company and indicated a desire to settle his personal injury claims and return to work. On February 12, 2007, Plaintiff (who was unrepresented at the time) attended Defendant’s offices to negotiate a release. Plaintiff was advised of his rights as a seaman, and ultimately agreed to settle any and all claims arising out of his August 2006 injury for sums equal to the compensation he would have received had he worked on the F/T REBECCA IRENE (plaintiff’s usual vessel, operated by the same management company as F/T ARICA) for the first two trips of 2007. The settlement checks were to be paid at such times as preliminary and final settlements for each trip occurred. Plaintiff received, and cashed, his first settlement check in the amount of $12,091.11 on February 22, 2007.

On September 6, 2007, Plaintiff advised Defendant of his retention of formal legal representation (Seattle maritime attorney Joseph Stacey).

Pursuant to the Release, Defendant paid Plaintiff a second installment check of $2,363.13 representing the final crewshare settlement for one of the trips agreed to in the Release on November 28, 2007. Hogle cashed this check.

Hogle filed suit against Defendant in King County Superior Court on November 1, 2007. Defendant was represented by LeGros Buchanan and Paul attorneys David C. Bratz and Kathryn P. Fletcher.

Pursuant to the terms of the Release, Defendant paid Plaintiff a third, and final, installment of his settlement compensation on July 11, 2008 in the amount of $7,738.19, representing the final settlement for the other trip agreed to in the Release (this final settlement was delayed by a regulatory holdback of proceeds pursuant to a fisheries investigation). The check specifically referred to “Full and Final Settlement.” In response to an inquiry by Plaintiff’s attorney as to the nature of the payment, defense counsel specifically stated that the check constituted the full and final settlement payment contemplated by the Plaintiff’s Release. Plaintiff cashed the check.

Plaintiff’s original lawyer then withdrew and Plaintiff thereafter obtained different legal counsel and pursued his claims for damages in the King County litigation.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment seeking enforcement of Plaintiff’s Release and dismissal of all of his claims. Plaintiff claimed, among other things, that he was incapacitated by prescription pain medication when he signed the Release in February 2007—a claim which Defendant disputed but would have avoided summary judgment if material. However, at oral argument on Defendant’s motion, the Honorable Julie Spector agreed with Defendant that whatever Hogle’s mental state may have been at the time of original execution, Plaintiff expressly ratified his Release by receiving, and cashing, the two settlement payments received after he had obtained counsel. Ratification was particularly undisputable, as a matter of law, as to the third and final settlement payment which bore the “full and final settlement” language, was issued after Plaintiff had filed suit and obtained legal representation, and was cashed by Plaintiff with an awareness that it constituted settlement of his claims against Defendant. Plaintiff’s subsequent ratification by cashing the settlement check, after receiving the advice of counsel, in effect validated—or re-validated—the original Release, making dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims appropriate.

The Court’s order, and the portion of the summary judgment hearing transcript in which the Court gave its oral ruling (and justifications therefor), are attached.

Plaintiff appealed the ruling to the Washington State Court of Appeals. Appellate oral argument is anticipated in Spring 2010.


« Return to Latest News