South Florida Boat Seizure Has National Implications

South Florida Attorney Robert Gross On A Recent Scotus Ruling

In 2009, the South Florida City of Riviera Beach seized a houseboat-like floating structure that was owned and occupied by Fane Lozman—a former commodity and options trader from Chicago. According to The Miami Herald Lozman had purchased the boat in 2002 and moved it to the Riviera Beach marina when Hurricane Wilma destroyed its previous berth in 2005. After a short time, Lozman's trouble with city officials began. The City of Riviera Beach claimed that Lozman refused to renew his lease or make improvements on the sixty by twelve foot floating structure. The city, which would soon be in negotiations to turn the marina over to a private operator, began changing its policies and making demands on Lozman.

"Then the city amended its marina rules. All vessels had to comply with the Clean Vessel Act, maintain specific levels of insurance and be able to leave the marina in an emergency. Lozman did not follow any of the new rules and, according to the city, was the only delinquent resident." – Laura Green, The Palm Beach Post, October 1, 2012

The city petitioned the courts for permission to seize (arrest) Lozman's home under maritime law, classifying it as a vessel. A judge agreed and ordered the U.S. Marshalls to arrest Lozman's home. It was subsequently towed to Miami, sold at auction to the City of Riviera Beach, and then destroyed—leaving the South Florida man without his home or property.

The Legal Definition of Vessel

What caught the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as dozens of maritime special interest groups, is the city's successful classification of Lozman's floating home as a vessel under maritime law in the lower courts. Lozman's house boat (seen here) is a box-like wooden structure that "lacked an engine, bilge pumps, navigation aids, lifeboats or other devices usually found on waterborne vessels." – Michael Doyle, The Miami Herald, January 15, 2013. The fact that it was equipped with land-based sewage lines and drew its power from a land-based source via an extension cord was also noted. The question is that if the boat could not move under its own power or navigate on the water, should it still be considered a vessel and subject to arrest pursuant to federal maritime law?

In a 7-2 decision, the court sided with Lozman, ruling that his wooden, floating house, was not, in fact, a vessel that is subject to maritime law. Justice Bryer who wrote the majority opinion stated, "Not every floating structure is a 'vessel.' To state the obvious, a wooden washtub, a plastic dishpan, a swimming platform on pontoons, a large fishing net, a door taken off its hinges, or Pinocchio (when inside the whale) are not 'vessels.'" The Supreme Court decision overturned the Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court's earlier ruling, which had classified Lozman's home as a vessel.

The two dissenting votes came from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Anthony Kennedy, who felt that the ruling "reaches well beyond relatively insignificant boats like Lozman's craft." This is certainly a valid concern for attorneys like myself who handle Jones Act claims. This ruling may limit the ability of workers who work on moored structures—ones that look like boats but aren't really intended for travel, such as casinos—to utilize the Jones Act for their work-related injuries. If so, it could reduce the amount of their potential claims to what is available under the Longshore Harborworker Act or applicable worker's compensation laws. This may be advantageous to employers who have operations on floating structures that would no longer be considered vessels, but the laborers who work on them are likely to suffer without the protection of the Jones Act.