Too Little, Too Late: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Limitation Proceeding

Owner v. Darrow (In re In Genesis Marine, L.L.C.), No. 25-30205, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1310 (5th Cir. Jan. 16, 2026).

By Arthur A. Crais, Jr., Adjunct Professor

            Genesis Marine, L.L.C. (Genesis) owned M/V ANACONDA[1] and employed Brandon Darrow, who was a tankerman on the vessel and sustained injuries on Dec. 23, 2020.[2] As a result of the injury, Darrow had spinal cord surgery in January and March 2021.[3] In June 2021, counsel for Darrow sent a letter of representation to Genesis and requested payment for additional surgery.[4] Genesis had Darrow examined by its selected orthopedist, who confirmed he would need additional surgery and was unable to work.[5]

            Counsel for Darrow filed suit in Louisiana state court on Dec. 23, 2021.[6] In its answer, Genesis denied all allegations and alleged “that the amount of damages sued for in the Petition herein greatly exceeds the amount or value of Genesis's interests in the M/V ANACONDA, and her freight then pending, if any. . . .”[7] Following discovery in state court and a demand of $22M in August 2024,[8] Genesis filed its petition for limitation of liability in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on Dec. 13, 2024.[9]

            Darrow filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss the limitation complaint, which was granted by the district court. This appeal followed.[10]

            The owner of a vessel has six months after written notice of a claim to file for limitation of liability in a federal court.[11] The six-month period begins when the written notice “’reveals a "reasonable possibility" that the claim will exceed the value of the vessel, and therefore that the vessel owner might benefit from the Limitation Act's protection.’”[12] The Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have recently addressed the six-month requirement and held that it is a claims processing rule and not jurisdictional.[13] Though the six-month rule is not jurisdictional, it, nonetheless, is mandatory.[14]

            The panel was not impressed with the arguments of Genesis, which maintained that it could not have known the damages would exceed the vessel's value until it received the expert reports. Judge Stewart, speaking for the entire panel, stated: “Darrow did not have an obligation to specify the amount of his damages in his state court petition, and he never stated that the damages he sought in his petition would be less than $12.5 million.”[15] The trial court did not err in concluding that Genesis had notice of a “reasonable possibility” that the claim could exceed the value of the vessel long before it filed for limitation.

            Genesis asserted limitation of liability as an affirmative defense in its answer to the state court petition. On appeal, it maintained that the trial judge erred in considering this as a judicial admission. The panel again rejected this contention. The trial judge did not consider it a binding admission and was of no consequence even if it were.[16]

            The trial court was affirmed with costs assessed against Genesis.

            A copy of the Lexis version is attached.

[1] The vessel and two barges were valued at $12.5 million. Owner v. Darrow (In re In Genesis Marine, L.L.C.), No. 25-30205, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1310, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 16, 2026).

[2] Id. at *1–2.

[3] Id. at *3. “[H]e had a ‘massive disk herniation’ that caused ‘severe central canal stenosis.’”

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at *3–4.

[6] 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1310, at *4.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at *6.

[9] Id. “Genesis alleged that its complaint was timely because it was filed ‘within six months from the date [it] received first written notice of a limitable claim because in August 2024, Darrow demanded Genesis pay him $22,000,000.’”

[10] Id. at *7.

[11] 46 U.S.C. § 30529(a).

[12] 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1310, at *9 (quoting In re Eckstein Marine Serv., L.L.C., 672 F.3d 310, 317 (5th Cir. 2012)).

[13] See Orion Marine Constr., Inc. v. Carroll, 918 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2019); In re Bonvillian Marine Serv., Inc., 19 F.4th 787 (5th Cir. 2021).

[14] 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1310, at *12.

[15] Id. at *21.

[16] Id. at *23.