|
ABANDONED PROPERTY Columbus-America
v. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co. (1992)
U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit
974 F.2d 450, cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1000
Author: ERL
P, Appellee=
Columbus-America Group
D, Appellant= Atlantic
Mutual Insurance Co.
Procedural
history: D sought review of the judgments of the U.S.
District Court, one granting Ps petition for declaration of
ownership of gold shipments recovered from a shipwreck in the
Atlantic Ocean, and another which denied pre-trial discovery to
other interveners when they intervened on the eve of trial.
Facts:
P discovered the exact location of an 1857 shipwreck in the
Atlantic Ocean that contained personal and commercial gold
shipments. P filed a petition in the district court to be
declared the owner of the gold under marine salvage law. D
(underwriters and their predecessors) had originally paid off
claims for the gold shipments that were on board, and contested
the petition. On the eve of trial, others intervened and claimed
that P had utilized information they had developed to find the
wreck and that they were entitled to a share of any recovery. The
district court found that the underwriters had abandoned their
ownership claims and granted title in the wreckage and its
contents to P. The district court found that P had not utilized
the information of the interveners.
Issues:
Does the evidence show that D affirmatively abandoned their
interest in the gold when their predecessors destroyed the
paperwork? >Yes.
Did trial court err in not allowing sufficient time for
interveners discovery? >Yes.
Holding:
The evidence did not sufficiently show that the underwriters had
affirmatively abandoned their interests in the gold. The court
also held that the district court abused its discretion when it
did not afford sufficient time for discovery.
Judgment:
Remanded, and district court is to apply the law of salvage and
determine what percentage the salvor and each underwriter is
entitled to.
Rationale:
Only evidence available is that after 134 years, some documents
which did exist may no longer be able to be located. Law
requires clear and convincing evidence, and this was not
presented. Interveners have their right to discovery in the
case after the intervention is allowed.
|