Log in or Sign up

Click for YF Listing Service

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser .

fleming yachts lawsuit

Fleming or Marlow Yachts?

Discussion in ' General Trawler Discussion ' started by lurch , Dec 14, 2011 .

lurch

lurch New Member

I'm brand new to the forum and very impressed with the information and knowledge on YachtForums! I had a Meridian 58 and put it up for sale early this year and it sold. So, my wife and I are looking for a used 55 to 60 ft used boat. We kept our Meridian in Greenport, NY (the North Fork of Long Island) and liked both the North Fork and cruising around New England. In looking at Yachtworld, we're attracted to the Marlow and Fleming. I'm told that the Marlow is a very wet boat and we frequently encounter rough weather. Can it be wetter than a Meridian? Otherwise it seems quite roomy and seaworthy. The Fleming seems small (saw one at the Annapolis Boat Show) and I need a space to sprawl out (I'm 71 and 6'3", so when I'm tired I'd like a salon that I can relax in with a book, and leave room for my wife). The main stateroom is in the bow and I'm wondering if there is wave-slap noise in that stateroom. Any information on these two boats and others is most welcome. Thank you in advance.

Capt J

Capt J Senior Member

Both are good well built boats, but I feel the Fleming is a touch above the Marlow in quality, I also would not forget to look at Offshore's and Outer Reef's. I haven't run either, so I cannot tell you how they ride, but they both are a major step up in quality above a Meridian.

NYCAP123

NYCAP123 Senior Member

Another Eastender. Welcome to YF Lurch. I think you'll find both the ride and quality with any of the boats you or Capt. J mentioned a big step up and more than capable of handling whatever you'll find around here. I met a guy down in Norfolk about a year ago who's had his Marlow up as far as Newfoundland and still likes it. There is a bit more wave-slap with a forward SR and a bouncier ride if there while cruising, but it's seldom a deal breaker. Good luck.
Ohhhh, and with your size. Find a boat with a king size in the master and preferably a full beam master. I have had several owners sell their boats and trade up because they couldn't get a good nights sleep with the wife and a tapered queen master.

PropBet

PropBet Senior Member

Lurch- Did you look at the 55 or 65 Fleming? There is a night and day difference between the two, simply in what they do with the additional beam, let alone the 10 feet of length. I'd agree with Capt J on the Fleming being a touch nicer, however Marlow is no ugly duckling in the field. I have grown fond of them more in the last year or two, versus several years back where we looked at both of them, side by side, very closely. To each their own. Fleming, in my opinion really, really thought the boat through for cruisers. Husband / Wife combo type sailing. Dig around the hatches, laz, engine room, other systems, etc. and it will be apparent. Marlow does a nice job as well, but I like the Fleming's. There are a couple of fit and finish blunders that Fleming had a couple years back with their door hardware, which I'm pretty sure they've cleaned up in recent models. Marlow had issues in random boats with vibrations in the running gear, but I've not heard much of it in recent years. I think both are well made boats. Like I said, we looked very closely at both in our search. I'd also second opening your search to include Grand Banks, and Offshore. Offshore's are very under rated boats and highly regarded by their owners. There are also a few discussions in the forum on them that have taken place over the years, so it may be worth a search. If you haven't seen the Fleming 65, and it's in your price point, I'd take another look at it. Welcome to the forum!

Kafue

Kafue Senior Member

Offshore Boats Fully agree with PropBet in regards to the Offshore boats. I spent time on an older 55, then looked over a 62' and finally bought a 58 Offshore for less than the same year 55 Fleming. I and my family found the 58' (which is the same as the 62', just shorter boarding platform) to be the BEST boat we have owned and as PropBet says, they seem to be under rated when compared to Marlow and Fleming. A 55 Fleming is far smaller than a 58 Offshore, even though it is supposed to be only a 3' difference. The Fleming tapers more at the cockpit and has a smaller salon etc. The Offshore 58/62 has a mid-stateroom with a large queen bed & ensuite. Large pilothouse, large cockpit and plenty of storage. They are a low profile for a pilothouse and great layout. We spent time cruising, diving and fishing off the East Coast Australia in various sea conditions and have no complaints. I have been caught in some reasonably bad following seas coming through inlets (we call them bars) and found she was no problem, except I had to turn off the stabilisers sometimes as it felt as though they might tear off the hull. Note: I am cautious mentioning wave heights on this forum because inevitably I will be told “you call that big…..well I had seas this big…etc.” and the guys are probably right, bad seas depends on your experience and is relative to the “norm”. Having said that, the seas over here are not gentle as a rule. Built in Taiwan by one of the better and respected yards. Can be customised etc. Not as "salty" as a Fleming, or refined either, but still quality.

nilo

nilo Senior Member

fleming vs marlow i had the chance to look at both fleming 65 in cannes and 2 marlows (around 90-100 feet range) at fort lauderdale. besides the difference in quality another aspect that differs is the general detailing for a better boat. my opinion there has been more efforts, thoughts spent for designing a better boat in the fleming. marlows has a lot of ideas, but seems they are more sporadic and does not so much look like an intact design but more like quick solutions.

bernd1972

bernd1972 Senior Member

I had the opportunity to take a tour through the Flemming 65 some time ago during the Hanseboot in Hamburg and even had the opportunitxy to talk to Mr. Tony flemming personally. Even though I made it clear that I am not a customer for one of his boats he took the time to talk with me for about almost an hour. We spent about 30 minutes of that time sitting conviniently in the engine room and discussing technical details. I had to confess that I really was impressed by the construction quality of that boat, especially the technical details concerning shaft system, electrics, the whole navitronic stuff, interiour quality and sense for details. You know you feel offended when you look at a millionairs´toy and find toy compasses in the wheelhouse. Not here! I inspected the smaller one a few years before at the Düsseldorf Boat show and the 65ft. version feels really like about 40% more ship in terms of interiour space. Concerning the technical stuff, I have to say that I never saw a recreational boat that was so consequently built to commercial quality. I cannot speak for or against Marlow, but I can recommend Flemming without hesitation.

u4ea32

u4ea32 New Member

Climbed all over Marlow and Fleming at FLIBS 4 years ago. Very similar as others mentioned. I've spent a few weeks on Fleming 55 and Fleming 65 cruising islands between Florida and Antigua (warm with both smooth and rough water). Both boats had active stabilizers (Naiad and Trac), but in sufficient seaway as one gets crossing the gulf stream or between the T&C and VI, both stabilizer systems could not always handle the sustained workload to control roll. On both boats, this lead to injuries on board, overheat shutdown of hydraulics, and damage to the fin linkages due to the high loads. Both Flemings are very quiet at anchor due to the lack of chines anywhere near the waterline. This is a very big deal to me, and a reason I won't again own a boat with chine flats or swim platforms near the waterline. Both Flemings as well as all the Marlows and nearly any other builder I've inspected over the past couple of decades have a serious deficiency that would not be difficult to rectify: they need the air conditioning running for decent ventilation. Dorade vents are necessary, but rarely fitted on modern yachts. The deck hatches on the Flemings do give decent ventilation in the forward stateroom, but only if the cabin door is open. The rest of the boat remains uncomfortably stuffy unless its cool and/or the air conditioning is always running. Access to mechanicals on the Fleming 75 is great, but not so good on the smaller boats. IMHO, its at least as important to have standing headroom and lots of elbow room in the mechanical spaces as in the galley, saloon, or bridge. While the floors CAN be lifted, doing so is both difficult and leads to noise and fume leaks. The carbon monoxide danger is very real in boats with insufficient ventilation and unsealed engine rooms beneath accomodation. CO lead to headaches and sea sickness to most aboard. The noise, vibration, harshness is very low on Flemings if you cruise them at efficient displacement speeds. With both Flemings, as well as with most boats, the longer you cruise aboard, the slower you want to go. About 8 knots on the 55, 9 on the 65 seemed appropriate. Therefore, most are very overpowered. Smaller engines would improve everything related to engine room maintenance, and reduce NVH. While the Fleming is very well and accurately documented (this is amazingly rare, and amazingly valuable), it still seemed far too complicated in the way electrical systems were wired as everything went via the bridge. Gives the nice feeling of centralized control, but the reality is wiring become more and more convoluted quickly over the life of the boat. The very good news about both Flemings: almost everything was very easy to access, and nothing seemed difficult to access. Again, this is quite rare and very valuable.

Kapn

Kapn Member

u4ea32 said: ↑ Both boats had active stabilizers (Naiad and Trac), but in sufficient seaway as one gets crossing the gulf stream or between the T&C and VI, both stabilizer systems could not always handle the sustained workload to control roll. On both boats, this lead to injuries on board, overheat shutdown of hydraulics, and damage to the fin linkages due to the high loads. Both Flemings are very quiet at anchor due to the lack of chines anywhere near the waterline. This is a very big deal to me, and a reason I won't again own a boat with chine flats or swim platforms near the waterline. While the floors CAN be lifted, doing so is both difficult and leads to noise and fume leaks. The carbon monoxide danger is very real in boats with insufficient ventilation and unsealed engine rooms beneath accomodation. The noise, vibration, harshness is very low on Flemings if you cruise them at efficient displacement speeds. With both Flemings, as well as with most boats, the longer you cruise aboard, the slower you want to go. About 8 knots on the 55, 9 on the 65 seemed appropriate. Therefore, most are very overpowered. Smaller engines would improve everything related to engine room maintenance, and reduce NVH. The very good news about both Flemings: almost everything was very easy to access, and nothing seemed difficult to access. Again, this is quite rare and very valuable. Click to expand...
Kapn said: ↑ ... Last time I checked, a proper exhaust system doesn't leak CO into any space on a boat. Click to expand...

Capt Bill11

Capt Bill11 Senior Member

u4ea32 said: ↑ Right. I think the fumes were coming in because we did not have the interior over-pressure via airconditioning. Click to expand...

vlafrank

vlafrank Senior Member

"over-pressure" He's just talking about maintaining "positive air pressure" in the boat. No biggie. The same necessity exists in large buildings, as well. The A/C does a bit more than just move air around within the boat; positive pressure would indeed inhibit exhaust fumes from coming into the boat, although not stop them completely unless A/C recirculate was selected. Even then, the boat better be darned "tight."
And now for the inevitable............ knee-jerk, rhetorical question, to wit: How come no one's mentioned my personal favorite, Nordhavn? Aren't they even sturdier than Marlows and Flemings? Thicker hulls, stringers, frames, scantlings, extremely robust mechanical systems, and so on? Will no one on this forum even briefly sing their praises as legitimate substitutes for M and F? Hate to be so predictable, but..................
Oh, especially Nordhavns are so different. The smaller ones tend to have a staircase where other yachts have companionways. You either love them or decide that they´re not for you.
vlafrank said: ↑ knee-jerk, rhetorical question, to wit: How come no one's mentioned my personal favorite, Nordhavn? Aren't they even sturdier than Marlows and Flemings? Thicker hulls, stringers, frames, scantlings, extremely robust mechanical systems, and so on? Will no one on this forum even briefly sing their praises as legitimate substitutes for M and F? Hate to be so predictable, but.................. Click to expand...

Marmot

Marmot Senior Member

vlafrank said: ↑ knee-jerk, rhetorical question, to wit: How come no one's mentioned my personal favorite, Nordhavn? Click to expand...

YachtForums

YachtForums Administrator

vlafrank said: ↑ knee-jerk, rhetorical question, to wit: How come no one's mentioned my personal favorite, Nordhavn? Will no one on this forum even briefly sing their praises as legitimate substitutes for M and F? Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Oops! Posted at the same time as Marmot.
What is it they say about "like minds?"
  • No, create an account now.
  • Yes, my password is:
  • Forgot your password?

YachtForums: We Know Big Boats!

fleming yachts lawsuit

Yacht Brokers Associations Hit With Price-Fixing Conspiracy Suit

By Katie Arcieri

Katie Arcieri

A group of yacht organizations and brokerages are facing a proposed class action accusing them of an agreement that resulted in inflated costs for the sale of vessels.

The International Yacht Brokers Association, the Yacht Brokers Association of America, and several large yacht brokerages enforced an agreed-upon rule requiring sellers to pay higher commissions to buyers’ brokers, according to a complaint filed Thursday by yacht seller Ya Mon Expeditions LLC in US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The arrangement made the cost of selling a boat much higher than it ought to be, the plaintiff alleged.

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.

  • MyNewMarkets.com
  • Claims Journal
  • Insurance Journal TV
  • Academy of Insurance
  • Carrier Management

Insurance Journal - Property Casualty Industry News

Featured Stories

  • Chubb’s Greenberg Defends Appeal Bond to Trump
  • HO Insurance Customer Satisfaction at 7-Year Low

Current Magazine

current magazine

  • Read Online

Update: James River Files Suit Against Fleming for Failing to Close Purchase of JRG Re

fleming yachts lawsuit

James River Group Holdings Ltd. announced it has filed a lawsuit against Fleming Intermediate Holdings for its failure to complete the $277 million acquisition of its casualty reinsurance subsidiary, JRG Reinsurance Co. – a deal that was first announced on Nov. 8, 2023.

Filed in the Supreme Court, New York County, Commercial Division, James River said the action was brought because Fleming failed to abide by its contractual obligation to complete the acquisition in accordance with the stock purchase agreement (SPA).

“James River has taken all of the contractually required steps to effect a closing, including the receipt of all regulatory approvals. However, just hours prior to the contractually required closing, Fleming claimed that it had no obligation to close and did not attend the scheduled closing call,” James River said in a statement. “Fleming subsequently demanded material economic changes to the agreed-upon transaction terms.”

Fleming is a portfolio company of private equity sponsor Altamont Capital Partners, which is based in Palo Alto, California.

On March 12, Fleming issued the following statement, attributed to Fleming’s CEO Eric Haller:

“James River Group’s complaint misrepresents the facts to distract from its attempt to deliver JRG Reinsurance to Fleming in a condition that dramatically violated the parties’ agreement while refusing to cure its breaches of contract. Fleming has no obligation to close the transaction and will defend itself against this frivolous lawsuit.”

AM Best Revises JRG Re’s Rating

In late December 2023, AM Best announced it had downgraded the financial strength rating of JRG Reinsurance Co. to “B++” (Good) from “A-” (Excellent) and its long-term issuer credit ratings to “bbb+” (Good) from “a-” (Excellent), while placing JRG Re’s credit ratings under review with negative implications.

At the same time, AM Best revised the outlook of most of the subsidiaries of James River Group Holdings to negative from stable, while affirming their financial strength ratings of “A-” (Excellent) and their long-term issuer credit ratings of “a-” (Excellent). The ratings agency also revised the holding company’s outlook to negative from stable while affirming its long-term ICR of “bbb-” (Good).

These rating actions followed announcements from James River Group Holdings that it: 1) had identified a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting, 2) it would sell JRG Re, and 3) it will explore strategic business alternatives for the organization.

Nevertheless, AM Best said the ratings of James River Group Holdings’ subsidiaries reflect their balance sheet strength (which AM Best assessed as very strong), as well as its adequate operating performance, neutral business profile and marginal enterprise risk management (ERM).

In its announcement, James River emphasized that as long as it continues to own JRG Re, “James River will continue to operate and support JRG Re and its cedents as it has throughout its ownership.”

“The lawsuit makes clear that Fleming’s self-serving complaints are flatly contradicted by the parties’ signed agreement. James River will take all actions necessary to protect its interests, enforce James River’s rights under the SPA and compel Fleming to complete the transaction in accordance with its terms,” James River went on to say in its announcement of the legal action.

“James River is taking immediate action to enforce its rights under the previously agreed upon transaction with Fleming and ensure that Fleming fulfills its obligations to the company. We remain confident in the strength of JRG Re and its team, and we believe that the steps we are taking are in the best interests of James River and its shareholders,” commented Frank D’Orazio, James River’s chief executive officer, in a statement.

Founded in 2007, JRG Re is focused on underwriting property/casualty reinsurance for small-to-medium-sized specialty companies, specialty divisions of larger companies, and regional carriers with defined competitive advantages and consistent results, the company said on its website, noting that its portfolio is heavily weighted toward short-to-intermediate-tail casualty lines. JRG Re targets working layer excess of loss and proportional treaty reinsurance. Currently, the client base consists of insurance companies writing business in the United States.

Bermuda-based James River Group Holdings owns and operates a group of specialty insurance and reinsurance companies in three specialty property/casualty insurance and reinsurance segments: excess and surplus lines, specialty admitted insurance and casualty reinsurance.

Topics Lawsuits

Was this article valuable?

Thank you! Please tell us what we can do to improve this article.

Thank you! % of people found this article valuable. Please tell us what you liked about it.

Here are more articles you may enjoy.

fleming yachts lawsuit

Written By L.S. Howard

Latest posts:.

  • Lloyd’s Reports Banner Year in 2023 but ‘Disciplined Underwriting’ Must Be Maintained
  • Casualty Reinsurance Renewals See Modest Price Hikes Despite Social Inflation: AM Best
  • P&I Clubs Raise Renewal Prices to Keep Up With Claims Inflation: AM Best

Interested in Lawsuits ?

Get automatic alerts for this topic.

  • Categories: International & Reinsurance News Topics: Altamont Capital Partners , Business Moves & Mergers , Fleming Intermediate Holdings , James River , James River Group Holdings , JRG Reinsurance , private equity in insurance , Reinsurance , reinsurer
  • Have a hot lead? Email us at [email protected]

Insurance Jobs

  • Software Engineer — DevOps - Saint Paul, MN
  • Excess & Surplus Lines Underwriter – REMOTE - Los Angeles, CA
  • Underwriter or Underwriter Assistant – Personal Lines – REMOTE - Shreveport, LA
  • Outside Property Claim Representative Trainee – Dallas, TX - Dallas, TX
  • Commercial Lines Underwriting Assistant – REMOTE - Worcester, MA

MyNewMarkets

  • 3 Areas for Agents to Focus Growth Efforts in 2024 As the Hard Market Continues
  • Majority of Underwriters Predict Cyber Risks Grow 'Greatly' in 2024: Survey
  • What's to Come in 2024: AI Expansion, More Catastrophes, Network Consolidation
  • South Carolina Liquor Liability Market 'Extremely Unprofitable,' DOI Report Says
  • NCCI: Wage Growth Likely to Continue Workers Comp Payroll Growth

Claims Journal

  • Internet Firms Must Face Defective Product Liability Suit Over Buffalo Mass Shooting
  • Indiana, West Virginia Pass New Restrictions on Third-Party Litigation Financing
  • Clearcover Launches Generative AI Tool Aimed at Expediting Claims Processing
  • UK Insurer Direct Line Posts Operating Loss as it Grapples With Auto Claims Inflation
  • US Takes on Apple in Antitrust Lawsuit

Academy of Insurance education

  • March 21 Excess and Surplus Lines - Doing Business Well in a Hard Market
  • April 4 Cyber Insurance - Where in the World is Coverage?
  • April 11 Artificial Intelligence and Insurance Agents - Panic or Promise?
  • April 18 Waiting on the Grand Reopening: Business Income Essentials
  • Find a Lawyer
  • Ask a Lawyer
  • Research the Law
  • Law Schools
  • Laws & Regs
  • Newsletters
  • Justia Connect
  • Pro Membership
  • Basic Membership
  • Justia Lawyer Directory
  • Platinum Placements
  • Gold Placements
  • Justia Elevate
  • Justia Amplify
  • PPC Management
  • Google Business Profile
  • Social Media
  • Justia Onward Blog

RSS

This docket was last retrieved on February 1, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER .

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Idaho District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

  • Search for Party Aliases
  • Associated Cases
  • Case File Location
  • Case Summary
  • Docket Report
  • History/Documents
  • Related Transactions
  • Check Status

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?

Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions .

  • Bankruptcy Lawyers
  • Business Lawyers
  • Criminal Lawyers
  • Employment Lawyers
  • Estate Planning Lawyers
  • Family Lawyers
  • Personal Injury Lawyers
  • Estate Planning
  • Personal Injury
  • Business Formation
  • Business Operations
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Trade
  • Real Estate
  • Financial Aid
  • Course Outlines
  • Law Journals
  • US Constitution
  • Regulations
  • Supreme Court
  • Circuit Courts
  • District Courts
  • Dockets & Filings
  • State Constitutions
  • State Codes
  • State Case Law
  • Legal Dictionary
  • Legal Blogs
  • Business Forms
  • Product Recalls
  • Justia Connect Membership
  • Justia Premium Placements
  • Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
  • Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
  • Testimonials
  • Find a Lawyer
  • Ask a Lawyer
  • Research the Law
  • Law Schools
  • Laws & Regs
  • Newsletters
  • Justia Connect
  • Pro Membership
  • Basic Membership
  • Justia Lawyer Directory
  • Platinum Placements
  • Gold Placements
  • Justia Elevate
  • Justia Amplify
  • PPC Management
  • Google Business Profile
  • Social Media
  • Justia Onward Blog

Frances Howard, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States of America; Us Sailing Association, Inc.; Waikiki Yacht Club, a Hawaii Corporation; Guy S. Fleming, Defendants-appellees, 181 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999)

Paul Cronin and Patrick McTernan, Cronin, Fried, Sekiya, Kekina & Fairbanks, Honolulu, Hawaii, for the plaintiff-appellant.

Brian M. Judge, United States Department of Justice, San Francisco, California, for defendant-appellee United States of America.

Calvin E. Young, Gail M. Kang, Steven L. Goto, Ayabe, Chong, Nishimoto, Sia and Nakamura, Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendants-appellees U.S. Sailing Association, Inc., and Guy S. Fleming.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-95-00642-DAE.

Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, Robert R. Beezer, and Thomas G. Nelson, Circuit Judges.

T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judge:

Frances Howard appeals the district court's judgment, after a bench trial, that the United States Government was immune from negligence liability for personal injuries suffered by Howard while she was using a military recreational facility. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. We affirm.

The Government operates, controls and maintains Hickam Air Force Base ("Base") on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii. The Morale, Welfare and Recreation Program ("MWR") at the Base has an Outdoor Recreation Department which is responsible for maintaining and supervising the parks, beaches and boating facilities located on the Base. One of these facilities is the Hickam Harbor Recreational Facility ("Hickam Harbor" or the "Harbor").

Hickam Harbor is available to military personnel, their families and guests for a number of recreational pursuits, including boating, using private or rented boats; windsurfing, using private or rented windsurf boards; picnicking; and swimming. The Harbor contains two floating docks, both owned by the Government - the Rhodes Dock and the Holder Dock. Howard was injured on the Holder Dock on June 4, 1993.

Howard, the wife of an active duty military officer, had just completed the afternoon sailing portion of the first day of a four-day sailing instructor course offered by US Sailing Association, Inc., a private organization that conducts sailing training courses. On that day, the wind and sea conditions were rough, and there was a swell coming into the harbor. Howard began to leave the dock to return to the classroom when she noticed a loose sail covering the end of the gangway 1   to shore. As she stopped to gather the sail, an incoming swell caused the floating dock to abruptly move shoreward and the gangway rolled onto her foot. Her resulting injuries are the subject of this lawsuit.

Howard filed suit against the Government claiming that her injuries were caused by the Government's negligence. 2   After a bench trial, the district court granted judgment in favor of the Government on Howard's claims, concluding that the Government was immune from negligence liability under the Hawaii Recreational Use Statute ("HRUS"), Haw. Rev. Stat. 520-1 to 520-8 (1993). 3   Howard timely appeals.

We review the district court's interpretation of both federal and state law de novo. See Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311 (9th Cir. 1997) (federal law); Palmer v. United States, 945 F.2d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 1991) (state law). The district court's factual findings after a bench trial are reviewed for clear error. See Magnuson v. Video Yesteryear, 85 F.3d 1424, 1427 (9th Cir. 1996).

Under the HRUS, a landowner who either directly or indirectly invites or permits, "without charge," another to use his or her property "for recreational purposes" is immune from negligence liability. See Haw. Rev. Stat. 520-4. Howard argues that the HRUS does not apply to her case because (a) the Government imposed a "charge" for use of the facility; (b) the dock on which she was hurt was not "open to the public"; (c) she was a "business invitee" and the HRUS does not apply to "business invitees"; and (d) she was not engaged in a "recreational activity" when she was injured. We will address each of these arguments in turn.

A. "Without Charge"

The first prerequisite to applicability of the HRUS is that the landowner must not "charge" those entering onto his or her land for recreational use. See Haw. Rev. Stat. 520-5(2). The HRUS defines "charge" as "the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land." See Haw. Rev. Stat. 520-2(4).

It is undisputed that the Government did not charge Howard or US Sailing a fee to enter upon or use the Harbor. It is also undisputed that the $ 175 fee that Howard paid to take the four-day sailing course was charged by, and paid exclusively to, US Sailing. 4   The Government did not receive any portion of this fee. Based on these undisputed facts, we hold that Howard was not "charged" an "admission price or fee . . . in return for . . . permission to enter or go upon the [Government's] land." Haw. Rev. Stat. 520-2, 520-4, 520-5(2).

Our holding is consistent with those cases that have interpreted the HRUS. For example, in Viess v. Sea Enter., 634 F. Supp. 226 , 226 (D. Haw. 1986), the plaintiff was injured while boogie-boarding off Wailea Beach. The plaintiff and his companions had stopped at a hotel for lunch and decided to go swimming before lunch. Id. at 227. They rented a boogie board from a concessionaire on the beach and took turns using the board while swimming. Id. The plaintiff went into the water with the board and "while facing the shore, was struck from behind by a large wave which lifted him up and threw him on his head. The impact fractured his neck and rendered him quadriplegic." Id.

The plaintiff sued, among others, Wailea Development ("Wailea"), the owner of the shoreline property above the mean high-tide mark where the accident occurred. Id. The district court granted Wailea's motion for summary judgment on the basis of immunity under the HRUS. See id. at 229-32.

In response to the plaintiff's argument that "Wailea has received economic benefit from allowing people to use the beach fronting its land," 5   the court stated:

[The "charge"] exception is much narrower than the general provision found in other recreational use statutes, which states that an owner may not escape liability where he receives consideration as a result of entry to his property. Such phrasing might permit the finding of liability where the defendant obtains some less obvious benefit from plaintiff's use of his land.

The Hawaii statute, in contrast, speaks only to the explicit quid pro quo arrangement whereby a landowner conditions admission to the land upon payment of a fee. In the instant case . . . from the time plaintiffs arrived at the hotel grounds to the time of the accident, the only fee solicited was from defendant [concessionaire] for the rental of the boogie board. That fee was in no way a prerequisite by Wailea for use of the public beach. Plaintiffs admit that defendant Wailea made no direct charge upon plaintiffs in return for access to the beach. The court, therefore, finds that the "charge" exception to [HRUS] immunity does not apply to defendant Wailea.

Id. at 229.

In Budde v. United States, 797 F. Supp. 731 , 733 (N.D. Iowa 1991), the plaintiff was injured while sunbathing and swimming at the officer's club swimming pool at the Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Hawaii. The plaintiff sued the Government to recover for the injuries she suffered. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Government, finding the Government immune from liability under the HRUS. Id. at 738.

The plaintiff argued that the Government was not immune under the HRUS because it had received a charge or fee. First, the plaintiff argued that the $ 6 perperson per night charge to stay at the Bachelor Officers' Quarters was a "charge" under the HRUS. Id. at 736. The court rejected this argument, stating:

This $ 6 fee was not a direct quid pro quo for the use of the swimming pool. In fact, [the plaintiff] was allowed the use of the pool because of her status as the dependent of an officer and not because she was paying to stay in her husband's quarters. She was eligible to use the pool regardless of where she was temporarily residing.

The district court similarly rejected plaintiff's second argument, that the "sales of food and drink at the Officer's Club bar and restaurant constitutes an indirect charge for the use of the swimming pool." Id. at 737.

In the present case, as in both Viess and Budde, the Government did not "charge" Howard for the use of its property. The "charge" exception to HRUS immunity does not, therefore, apply. See Budde, 797 F. Supp. at 736-37; Viess, 634 F. Supp. at 229; see also Covington v. United States, 916 F. Supp. 1511 , 1521 n.2 (D. Haw. 1996), aff'd, 119 F.3d 5 (9th Cir. 1997) ("Although the Warrens paid to use the picnic area behind the beach, this fee does not trigger the charge exception because it was not a prerequisite to Joshua's entry onto the beach.").

Howard argues, however, that the Government imposed a "charge" within the meaning of the HRUS because she had to pay US Sailing $ 175 to take the course, and the Government "received a direct financial benefit" because US Sailing allowed two Government employees to take the course at a 50% discount. In so arguing, Howard misses the distinction between the two different types of recreational use statutes that have been passed in the various states: (1) "charge" or "fee" statutes and (2) "consideration" statutes.

Most states that have passed recreational use statutes have provided that the grant of immunity will not apply if the permission to enter the land for the recreational purpose was granted for a "charge" or "fee." See, e.g., Ark. Code Ann. 18-11-305, 18-11-307; Colo. Rev. Stat. 33-41-103, 33-41-104; Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557g, 52-557h; Del. Code. Ann. tit. 7, 5904, 5906; Fla. Stat. Ann. 375.251(2) (b); Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 68, 477-4; Wash. Rev. Code 4.24.210.

Under these "charge" or "fee" statutes, most courts have declined to apply the exception to immunity unless an actual fee has been charged by the landowner for entry onto the land. For example, in Jones v. United States, 693 F.2d 1299, 1300 (9th Cir. 1982), the plaintiff was injured in Olympic National Park while snow-sliding on an inner tube she had rented from a concessionaire. The concessionaire, located in the park on Government property, paid the Government a fixed rental fee and a percentage of its gross receipts. Id. at 1303.

In holding that no fee had been charged which would deny the Government its immunity under Washington's recreational use statute, this court noted that members of the public were not charged a fee to enter onto the land or to use the land, and that the plaintiff could have used the slope or any other area of the park free of charge if she had brought her own tube. Id. at 1303-04. The fee that the plaintiff had paid was simply a fee for use of the tube, not for use of the Government's land. Id. at 1303. The Government was therefore immune from liability. See id. at 1303-04.

In Flohr v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 821 F. Supp. 301 , 302 (E.D. Pa. 1993), the plaintiffs were fishing on the banks of a creek in a recreational area owned by the defendant when a tree fell and struck them. The fishing spot where the plaintiffs were injured was within the perimeter of the defendant's campground at which the plaintiffs were staying. Id. at 305. The court found that the defendant was entitled to immunity under Pennsylvania's recreational use statute despite the fact that the plaintiffs had paid a fee to use the campground. See id. at 305-06.

The court stated that its holding did "not hinge upon what the fee paid by the [plaintiffs] covered or did not cover." Id. at 305.

Rather the . . . holding was based on the fact that the camping fee paid by plaintiffs was not a quid pro quo in exchange for permission to enter Otter Creek at the time plaintiffs were fishing. If plaintiffs had only come to Otter Creek for the day, it is undisputed that they could have used the recreational facilities and fished at the accident site free of charge.

In Zuk v. United States, 698 F. Supp. 1577 , 1577 (S.D. Fla. 1988), the plaintiff was injured while visiting Fort Jefferson National Monument, a unit of the National Park System located in Florida. No fees were charged for entrance or admission to Fort Jefferson. Id. at 1578. The Government did charge a $ 50 biannual special use permit fee for chartered seaplanes and fishing and dive boats. Id. The Government did not, however, charge fees to boats bringing passengers to the Fort. Id.

The court held that the Government was immune from liability under Florida's recreational use statute. As to the plaintiff's argument that a "charge" was made because the air taxi service to the Fort charged $ 99 for a round trip, and the air taxi service (as well as twenty-five other boat and seaplane charterers) had to pay the Government a $ 50 biannual fee, the court stated:

This argument ignores the explicit language of the ["charge" exception]. There is no dispute that the [National Park Service], which operates Fort Jefferson, does not charge a fee for entry into the Park. The fact that licensing fees are charged to boat and seaplane charter operators or that fees are charged by private taxi services for transportation purposes does not change the fact that no charge is made for entering or using the park area.

Id. at 1582; see also Carlton v. Cleburne County, 93 F.3d 505, 510 (8th Cir. 1996) ("Because there was no entrance fee, or any other fee of any kind, paid in the instant case, we conclude the 'charge' exception to [Arkansas's recreational use statute] does not apply."); Wilson v. United States, 989 F.2d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding that $ 2 per person/per night fee paid by Boy Scout troop to spend the night at Army military post was not a "charge" to enter onto the land or for use of the land and therefore did not fall within the "charge" exception); Kirkland v. United States, 930 F. Supp. 1443 , 1446 (D. Colo. 1996) ("The [charge] definition suggests a quid pro quo arrangement whereby the owner conditions entry on the land upon payment of a fee.").

Other states have passed recreational use statutes that do not extend immunity to landowners where the permission to enter the land for the recreational purpose was granted for a "consideration." See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code 846; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 212:34(III) (c); N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:42A-4(b); Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.510(3) (a) (2). The use of the term "consideration" in these statutes suggests that the legislatures intended a broad reading of the exception to immunity. See Ducey v. United States, 713 F.2d 504, 510 (9th Cir. 1983). Under the consideration statutes, almost any form of benefit to the landowner will act to trigger the immunity exception.

For example, in Ducey, we held that the Government's receipt of 1-3/4% of a concessionaire's gross annual receipts from sales at a cafe-store and from boat slip and trailer space rentals located in a national recreational area owned by the Government were sufficient to be "consideration" under the Nevada recreational use statute immunity exception. See id. at 507, 514. This was true even though the plaintiffs had not paid a fee or charge to enter the recreational area. See id. at 507; see also Collins v. Martella, 17 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1994) (interpreting New Hampshire's recreational use statute immunity exception as requiring the defendant to somehow benefit from the consideration); Hallacker v. National Bank & Trust Co., 806 F.2d 488, 489-492 (3d Cir. 1986) (interpreting New Jersey's recreational use statute immunity exception as applying and thus not immunizing a landowner that was paid consideration by a friend of the plaintiff); Casas v. United States, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1104 , 1105-08 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (interpreting California's recreational use statute to immunize the Government where the plaintiff, who had entered onto the Marine Corps Air Station to participate in a 5K race that was open to the public, did not have to pay consideration to enter onto the base and had not yet paid the $ 20 entry fee for the race at the time of her injury).

The HRUS clearly falls within the "charge" or "fee" category of recreational use statutes. As stated previously, the HRUS extends immunity to landowners who allow others to use their land without "charge." See Haw. Rev. Stat. 520-4, 520-5(2). The HRUS defines "charge" as "the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land." Haw. Rev. Stat. 520-2(4). This is the same definition that is used by several other states in their "charge" statutes. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557f(1) ("'Charge' means the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land."); Del. Code. Ann. tit. 7, 5902(4) (same); Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 68, 477-2(4) (same); see also Colo. Rev. Stat. 33-41-102(1) ("'Charge' means a consideration paid for entry upon or use of the land or any facilities thereon or adjacent thereto.").

Howard's reliance on cases interpreting "consideration" statutes in support of her argument that she was charged a "fee" is misplaced. As we have previously recognized, the "consideration" exception is much broader than the "charge" or "fee" exception:

The language of the consideration exception itself suggests a broad reading. . . . The exception is worded not in narrow terms of "fee" or "charge," but rather in the far more encompassing terms, "for a consideration." "Consideration" is a term of art, a word with a well-understood meaning in the law, embracing any "right, interest, profit or benefit." Used in a statute, it should be accorded that meaning. The statutory exception, then, is itself literally applicable to situations well beyond those involving a strict charging of a "fee" for "permission" to recreate.

Ducey, 713 F.2d at 510 (citations and footnote omitted).

"The interpretation of the various recreational use statutes is controlled by the precise language of each statute." Wilson, 989 F.2d at 956. Thus, the only cases that will be applicable in analyzing the "charge" exception to the HRUS are cases interpreting statutes with the same language, i.e., the "charge" statutes. We therefore look only to those cases interpreting "charge" statutes in determining whether the Government is entitled to immunity under the HRUS and reject Howard's arguments that rely on cases interpreting "consideration" statutes.

In summary, we agree with the district court:

It is not enough [under the HRUS] for a landowner to have received a benefit in return for a third-party's privilege to charge people.

[ ] Here, MWR did not charge the Plaintiff or US Sailing for entry onto the land. Although MWR did receive a reduced fee for two of its employees, Plaintiff was paying for a service provided by US Sailing, similar to the services provided by the surf board concessionaires in Viess, or the inner tube renters in Jones.

[ ] The statute's purpose prevents a private landowner who allows the public onto its land from actually running a business or other venture for commercial profit, injuring someone and then disclaiming liability. It is clear that even on the day in question, the Government itself did not charge anyone for the use of its facility, and in fact, could have made money if it had charged US Sailing.

Because the Government did not impose a "charge" or "fee" for Howard to enter upon and use Hickam Harbor, Howard's use of the Government's property was "without charge" under the HRUS.

B. "Open to the Public"

Howard argues that the dock on which Howard was injured was closed to the nonpaying public and that the Government is therefore not immune from suit under the HRUS.

The HRUS provides immunity to landowners who allow "any person" to use their property for recreational purposes "without charge." Haw. Rev. Stat. 520-4. The HRUS lists three exceptions to this grant of immunity: (1) where injury is caused by the landowner's willful or malicious action or inaction; (2) where the landowner has charged "the person or persons" for the use of the land; and (3) where the injury is suffered by a "house guest" while on the owner's lanD. Haw. Rev. Stat. 520-5. The HRUS does not contain a requirement that a landowner allow each and every individual of the general public access and use of the land; to the contrary, under the plain language of the statute, unless the landowner charges a fee or acts maliciously or willfully, the landowner is immunized for injury to "any person" using his or her land for recreational purposes unless that "person" is a "house guest." See id.

Hickam Harbor and the dock on which Howard was injured is open to military personnel, their families and their guests. Even if it is closed to the "general" public, the fact that it is open to the military public without charge is sufficient to qualify for immunity under the HRUS. See Mansion v. United States, 945 F.2d 1115, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 1991) (rejecting plaintiff's contention "that only land owners who allow anyone and everyone free access to their property may claim recreational immunity"); Budde, 797 F. Supp. at 735 (rejecting argument that pool did not fall within the HRUS requirements because it was not open to the general public); Stout v. United States, 696 F. Supp. 538 , 539 (D. Haw. 1987) (stating that the "statute appears to apply even if the military base was closed to the general public").

The fact that Holder Dock was closed to everyone except the instructors and students of the sailing course on the day of Howard's injury does not strip the Government of its HRUS immunity. The Government limited access to the dock on that day to prevent injury to novice sailors and/or because of the rough weather conditions. The Government can exercise such control and discretion over who uses its land for recreational purposes without forfeiting the immunity that the HRUS provides. See Stout, 696 F. Supp. at 539 (recognizing that "a landowner can control who uses his land for recreational purposes," and that "such discretion should not result in the forfeiture of the immunity that [the HRUS] provides").

C. Applicability of HRUS Immunity to Business Invitees

Howard admits that there is no express exception in the HRUS for business invitees; she argues, however, that the legislative history indicates that the HRUS was not intended to immunize businesses from liability to their business invitees.

The language of the HRUS is unambiguous and clearly extends immunity to any landowner who allows "any person" to enter onto his or her land "without charge" for "recreational purposes." Haw. Rev. Stat. 520-4. The only exceptions to this grant of immunity are also stated in unambiguous terms: (1) where injury is caused by the landowner's willful or malicious acts or omissions; (2) where the landowner "charges" the person to enter or go on the land; and (3) where the injured party is a "house guest." Haw. Rev. Stat. 520-5. There is, therefore, no need to resort to the legislative history of the HRUS in search of an exception that is clearly not included. See United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1 , 117 S. Ct. 1032, 1035, 137 L. Ed. 2d 132 (1997).

D. "Recreational Purpose"

The HRUS defines "recreational purpose" as including "hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study, water skiing, winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites." Haw. Rev. Stat. 520-2(3). Howard was engaged in the activity of boating, an activity explicitly included in the definition of "recreational purpose."

Howard argues, however, that she was not engaging in a "recreational activity" while taking the sailing course. She claims that the sailing course was "a professional-level course for persons who either were, or wished to become, professional sailing instructors"; that she did not interpret the course as "recreation" because she interpreted MWR's "encouragement" of her attendance "as an actual requirement that she do so"; and that she "hoped to use this training professionally in the future." In other words, Howard wants us to examine her subjective intent in taking the course and engaging in the activity of "boating" to determine whether it was "recreational." Her authority for this approach is an unpublished order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, Chadwick v. United States, No. 91-00138 (D. Haw. Oct. 19, 1993) (order denying Government's motion for summary judgment).

In Chadwick, the plaintiff was injured while taking a shortcut across Government property on the way to a concert. The property where the concert was being held was adjacent to the Government's property. The court held that although attending the concert was recreational, the plaintiff's route across Government property to get to the concert was not. Id. at 10-11. Therefore, the court held, the Government was not immune under the HRUS. Id. at 11. Howard relies on a single line from Chadwick to support her argument: "The relevant focus in determining if the statute is applicable is on the intent of the user, rather than of the landowner." Id. at 10.

Howard's reliance on Chadwick is misplaced. First, Chadwick is inapplicable. The issue in Chadwick was ingress and egress, where a person is injured not on the property where the recreational activity has or will take place, but traveling to or from this property. See id. The HRUS's application to ingress or egress is not before us. Howard was actually engaged in recreational activity at the time of her injury.

Second, at least where ingress and egress are not at issue, to determine whether a landowner will be immune from liability under a recreational use statute, the proper focus is on the landowner's intent. For example, in Gaeta v. Seattle City Light, 54 Wash. App. 603, 774 P.2d 1255, 1258 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989), the plaintiff was injured while crossing a roadway on a dam. He argued that his use was commercial and not recreational because he crossed the dam to reach a resort where he could purchase gasoline for his motorcycle. Id. The court stated: We find the proper approach in deciding whether or not the recreational use act applies is to view it from the standpoint of the landowner or occupier. If [the landowner] has brought himself within the terms of the statute, then it is not significant that a person coming onto the property may have some commercial purpose in mind. By opening up the lands for recreational use without a fee, [the landowner] has brought itself under the protection of the immunity statute, and it therefore is immaterial that [the plaintiff] may have driven across the dam in search of gasoline at the resort.

Accordingly, we find that the recreational use act applies to the [landowner's] properties involved in this accident.

Id. (emphasis added).

Similarly, in the present case, the Government has opened up its property at Hickam Harbor for recreational use without a fee. The activity of "boating" that Howard was undisputedly involved in falls within the HRUS's definition of "recreational activity." That Howard may have had a "professional" motive in enrolling in the sailing course is not relevant to the inquiry. See id.; see also Palmer, 945 F.2d at 1136-37 (rejecting plaintiff's argument that "he was engaged in the nonrecreational activity of supervising his grandchildren" while they were swimming and that the recreational statute did not apply because he "was not permitted to use the swimming pool"); Silingo v. Village of Mukwonago, 156 Wis. 2d 536, 458 N.W.2d 379 , 382 (WiS. Ct. App.) (rejecting a subjective test for determining whether an activity is "recreational" because it would not serve the goal of the recreational use statute); but see Casas, 19 F. Supp. 2d at 1107 ("Because [the recreational use statute] applies when the person using the land has a recreational purpose, and not when the landowner has such a purpose, it applies in this case where the plaintiff came onto defendant's land for the recreational purpose of running in a race.").

Holding that it is the landowner's intent that controls whether the recreational use statute applies in this situation furthers the purpose of the HRUS of encouraging landowners to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes. See Haw. Rev. Stat. 520-1. As the Government points out: "If land owners were required to screen each individual entering their property to ensure that each and every person had a proper recreational purpose so that the HRUS applied, then landowners would not open their property at all, defeating the purpose of the statute."

In summary, although Howard may have had professional as well as personal reasons for taking the course, 6   her alleged "professional" motivation does not convert her into a "nonrecreational" user. Her subjective intent is, in this situation, immaterial.

The district court's holding that the Government is immune from negligence liability under the HRUS is AFFIRMED. 7  

The gangway connects the floating dock to the shore, with one end of the gangway permanently connected to the shore and the other end resting on a roller on the floating dock.

Howard later amended her complaint to add US Sailing, the Waikiki Yacht Club and Guy S. Fleming as additional defendants. The district court dismissed Howard's claims against these additional defendants because the statute of limitations had expired. Howard has not appealed the dismissal of these defendants.

The HRUS has been amended since the accident at issue in this case. All references to the HRUS are to the version in effect at the time of the accident in 1993.

Howard had just recently been hired by the MWR as a part-time sailing instructor at the Harbor. It is undisputed that the MWR encouraged Howard to take this sailing course but that the course was not required for her employment. It is also undisputed that Howard paid her own fee to take the course.

There was apparently an interrelationship between Wailea, the hotel and the concessionaire. Wailea and the hotel were both owned by common parent corporations. The hotel, in turn, leased the beach concession to the concessionaire that rented the boogie board to the plaintiff and his companions. See 634 F. Supp. at 229.

Howard's application form for this sailing course indicates that she was taking the course for personal as well as professional reasons. In response to the question of why she was taking the course, Howard listed: "Improve instructional methods, increase sailing knowledge, skills and techniques in dinghy boats, become competent in non-familiar boats, gain basic coaching techniques, become qualified to instruct under USSA standards."

Because we affirm the district court's holding that the Government is immune under the HRUS, we need not address the other issues raised by the parties on appeal.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

Get free summaries of new Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox!

  • Bankruptcy Lawyers
  • Business Lawyers
  • Criminal Lawyers
  • Employment Lawyers
  • Estate Planning Lawyers
  • Family Lawyers
  • Personal Injury Lawyers
  • Estate Planning
  • Personal Injury
  • Business Formation
  • Business Operations
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Trade
  • Real Estate
  • Financial Aid
  • Course Outlines
  • Law Journals
  • US Constitution
  • Regulations
  • Supreme Court
  • Circuit Courts
  • District Courts
  • Dockets & Filings
  • State Constitutions
  • State Codes
  • State Case Law
  • Legal Blogs
  • Business Forms
  • Product Recalls
  • Justia Connect Membership
  • Justia Premium Placements
  • Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
  • Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
  • Testimonials

Boats for sale

Sell your Boat

News & Reviews

Help & FAQs

Hero image

40 Years of Fleming Yachts History

Fleming Yachts have a classic look but they are always at the cutting edge in design and equipment.

1985 was a big year for yachtsmen and adventurers the world over. Against a background of international political turmoil, records were set for everything from speed to size (not to mention some wild trends in interiors). At home, the nation watched Apollo take out the Sydney to Hobart (again). The fourth ever edition of what’s now known as the Volvo Ocean Race started out from Southampton. And that same year, in another corner of the world, a future international legend was quietly born. 

European and American boat yards may be somewhat historical homes for the development of cruising yachts, but in 1985, founder Tony Fleming was looking to the future. At the time, the business of building yachts in Taiwan was only really a few decades old, yet the local industry was already developing an incredible reputation for quality and finesse. Along with business partner Anton Emmerton, Fleming handpicked the Tung Hwa boat yard as the facility in which to create the very first Fleming 55.

Tung Hwa is located in Kaohsiung, on the south end of the island. Kaohsiung is today broadly considered south east Asia’s hub for yacht construction. Local yards in Taiwan produce the majority of the 50-plus foot yachts in the world today. And while Kaohsiung is the third biggest city in the country today, back in the ‘80s it was still on its way up from its roots as a tiny port town. And Fleming Yachts was going to be a part of the rise, with the evolution of the Fleming 55.

The original mould for this model was built for a 55-foot yacht, but the first eight of these were actually 50 feet — built with slightly shorter cockpits. By the mid ‘90s, this had been extended out to 55, and by the late ‘90s over 100 had been delivered to customers worldwide. The very first arrived in Australia in 2001, marking the launch of the brand here.

fleming yachts lawsuit

It’s easy to see why this model was such an early customer favourite when you look at the technical flexibility. With a range of 2,000 nautical miles at eight knots, she can still hit a top speed of around 18 knots, though most owners tend to stick around ten for longer passages. Of course, the design has also come a long way since the very first was completed in 1986. Hundreds of incremental improvements have been made, incorporating the latest in advanced yachting technology, to produce a modern yacht that’s evolved with the times. And that’s not even touching on the addictive aesthetic. Back in 2012, Trade a Boat magazine noted that “the class isn't intangible; you can see it in the depth of the paintwork and the quality of the fittings. Take one step aboard, through the wide gate in the side bulwark and you're hooked forever — much like sliding into the back seat of a Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost”. Over 250 have now been produced for owners across the globe, and over a dozen of those are cruising in Australia.

Fleming 75 

The first Fleming 75 was launched in 2000, the result of customer demand for a larger model, and years of input to kick the engineering excellence and effortless elegance up a notch. The evolution didn’t stop there; 10 years later, it was upgraded to a 78, with a slightly longer hull and keel, to reduce fuel consumption and increase range. Smart and artful. While the Fleming 78 is considered the ‘ultimate Fleming’ by owners around the globe, we’re yet to see any grace Aussie waters.

Not content with resting on the laurels earned by the 55 and 78, the next Fleming model was launched in 2005. It’s probably a pretty good sign when the very first of a new model is snapped up by the founder themselves. But even without the well-documented adventures of Tony Fleming’s VENTURE, there was enough demand for five 65s to have been delivered within the year. It probably helped that Yachts magazine voted the Fleming 65 best in her class *in the world* for 2006. But quite apart from the international recognition, engineering obsessives have appreciated the considerable upgrade in interior and deck space compared with the 55. Further testing and evaluation of refinements (by Tony himself on Venture) has led to an impressive list of new items available on production models. The brand’s official VR tour of hull 65-051 is a must-see if you’re ready to daydream about being miles away from lockdowns on land in an unimaginably spacious master suite.

fleming yachts lawsuit

The very first Fleming 65 landed in Australia not long after, in 2010. In fact, it was brought in by the same lucky owners who’d acquired the first 55 here. Today, there are four Fleming 65s around the country. 

fleming yachts lawsuit

2006 also marked the year that Tony Fleming stepped up to his next adventure. Fleming handed over the reigns in Kaohsiung to his nephew, engineer Adi Shard, his daughter Nicky, and experienced engineer (and yacht captain) Duncan Cowie, who’d joined the team in 2001. From her new home in Newport Beach, California, VENTURE explored destinations around North, Central and South America, from BC and Alaska, down to Mexico, the Galapagos, through the Panama Canal and back up the east coast up to Nova Scotia and PEI. At the time it was called “the world’s most extensive sea trial”, leading to many of the aforementioned improvements to the 65 since first launch. 

Fleming Yachts had to do something big to mark their 25th anniversary in 2013. So with a ton of research and input from dozens of owners, they created the Fleming 58. This new model represented the perfect balance between the strengths of the 55 and 65. However, to get it right required not just a few adjustments, but re-engineering from the keel up. 

Naval architects Norman Wright and Sons, based here in Brisbane, were selected for their expertise in hull design and tank testing. The (adorable) 1/12 scale model was built and tested in Tassie, making the Aussie contribution to Fleming heritage more significant than ever. While the first (full size) Fleming 58 didn’t arrive in here until 2017, there are now a couple of them making up the contingent in Australia.

fleming yachts lawsuit

When we checked out the 58, we noted the builder mentioned that “the design of the hull and increased waterline length will deliver fuel consumption similar to the Fleming 55” but that “a 50 per cent increase in tankage over the smaller sibling greatly increases the 58’s range”. It’s not just the extra tankage that’s stacked on this model. The cockpit is bigger by a couple of square metres, there’s crucial extra room in the saloon, and space for a freezer, fridge and barbie. Of course, with a variety of layout options, it’s up to new owners how they make the most of this space. 

Fleming 85 

With the latest model in the Fleming range, the 85, engineers had the (incredibly modest) mission of creating “literally the finest possible ocean going pilothouse motor yacht, in every respect.” So, apparently no slowing down for this pioneering team with less than 30 years’ production on the board, but hundreds of years of combined experience and expertise. Not to mention extensive CFD technology, thorough fine-tuning and testing to ensure the performance lives up to all promises.

When Trade a Boat reviewed the 85 last year, they noted that “the Fleming 85 has come a long way from the downeast lobster boats from which it borrows nautical styling”. Not just because of the deck space or the flexibility of getting your 85 with either an open flybridge or enclosed pilothouse, depending on your entertaining preferences. It’d have to be a pretty fancy lobster boat to have this kind of cream leather upholstery, flawless blonde wood panelling and tasteful finishes. It’s not just meticulously engineered, it’s classy. The exclusivity is real; there are only a few of these in the world at present, and one on order for a lucky owner in Australia. 

fleming yachts lawsuit

The Fleming 85 is the latest in a line that represents a dedication to classic looks, whilst being at the cutting edge of design and equipment. But it’s certainly not the end of the line. Tony’s voyages on the VENTURE II continue ( check out the Fleming Yachts YouTube for some serious cruising inspiration ). Fleming owners continue to post some of the most stunning content from all corners of the map, whilst delivering further performance feedback that’s going straight into next generation designs.

fleming yachts lawsuit

There are currently over 340 Flemings worldwide. By the end of this year, 27 of them will be cruising in Australia. With a growing base of loyal owners, and a string of international accolades, it’s well on its way to becoming a contemporary classic in its class.

Meet the Fleming Yachts Australian Team

Fleming Yachts’ Aussie contingent consists of Egil Paulsen and Samuel Nicholas. They’re supported by a team of contractors who help deliver specialist services to Fleming owners around the country. Both are long-term Fleming followers, Paulsen the proud owner of a 55 himself, Nicholas having cruised aboard a 55 in Scandinavian waters may times. They’re proud to have been part of bringing the current 23 Flemings to Australia.

fleming yachts lawsuit

The Australian team maintain strong relationships with the current unit that run the building operations in Taiwan. Up-to-the-minute communication helps them offer the highest levels of personal service and technical insight to clients. It’s also telling that Paulsen has a close relationship with founder Tony Fleming, and introduced director Duncan Cowie to him. This close-knit group are prepared for a bright future for Fleming Yachts in Australia, along with loyal owners. Don’t hesitate to pay them a visit at E pier and experience “the ultimate cruising yachts” for yourself.

Related Articles:

Fleming Yachts Reviews

Public Juris

The Public Right Laws

Lawyer

Bering Yachts Lawsuit: A Comprehensive Overview of the Legal Disputes

: Learn about the Bering Yachts lawsuit, its implications, and the legal disputes surrounding the company. This comprehensive article offers insights into the subject matter, combining expert analysis and first-hand experiences.

Welcome to this comprehensive guide on the Bering Yachts lawsuit, where we delve into the legal intricacies and disputes surrounding this renowned yacht manufacturer. In recent times, Bering Yachts has found itself embroiled in legal battles, which have raised questions and concerns among the boating community and investors alike. This article aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the lawsuits, examining their impact and implications on the company’s reputation and operations.

Table of Contents

Bering Yachts Lawsuit: Understanding the Controversy

The Bering Yachts lawsuit has gained significant attention due to its impact on the maritime industry. Several legal disputes have emerged, primarily revolving around alleged product defects, contractual breaches, and warranty claims. To understand the situation better, let’s explore the key aspects of these controversies.

1. Alleged Product Defects and Safety Concerns

One of the primary concerns in the Bering Yachts lawsuit is related to alleged product defects and safety issues in some of their yachts. Customers have reported instances of malfunctioning equipment, subpar construction, and potential safety hazards. Such claims have led to legal actions being taken against the company by dissatisfied clients.

2. Contractual Breaches and Warranty Disputes

Another major area of contention revolves around contractual breaches and warranty disputes. Some customers have claimed that Bering Yachts failed to meet the terms of their agreements, leading to disputes over warranty coverage and post-sale support. This has resulted in numerous legal battles between the company and its clients.

3. Impact on Brand Reputation

The ongoing legal disputes have inevitably impacted Bering Yachts’ brand reputation. Negative publicity, regardless of the outcome, can tarnish the image of a company in the eyes of potential customers and investors. The Bering Yachts lawsuit has raised questions about the company’s commitment to quality and customer satisfaction.

The Legal Landscape: Past Cases and Precedents

To gain a better understanding of the Bering Yachts lawsuit, it’s essential to explore past cases and legal precedents that may shed light on the potential outcomes of the current disputes.

1. Similar Cases in the Maritime Industry

The maritime industry has witnessed similar lawsuits in the past, involving other yacht manufacturers and shipbuilders. Analyzing the outcomes of these cases could provide insights into how courts typically handle such disputes and their implications for Bering Yachts.

2. Importance of Expert Witnesses

In complex lawsuits like those involving product defects, expert witnesses play a crucial role. Their testimonies and analyses can significantly impact the court’s decision-making process. Understanding the role of expert witnesses and the weight their opinions carry is vital in predicting the lawsuit’s potential direction.

3. Settlement vs. Litigation

A crucial decision that both plaintiffs and defendants face in legal battles is whether to pursue a settlement or proceed with full-scale litigation. Examining the pros and cons of each approach can provide valuable insights into the possible resolution of the Bering Yachts lawsuit.

Bering Yachts’ Response: Mitigation Strategies and Communication

As the Bering Yachts lawsuit progresses, the company’s response and communication with stakeholders become essential factors to monitor. Let’s explore how the company has addressed the legal challenges.

1. Implementing Quality Control Measures

In response to the product defect allegations, Bering Yachts has likely implemented rigorous quality control measures to address any potential issues with their yachts. Understanding these measures can offer insight into the company’s commitment to rectifying its products.

2. Communicating with Customers and Investors

Maintaining open and transparent communication with customers and investors is crucial during legal disputes. Bering Yachts’ communication strategy may influence stakeholders’ perceptions of the company’s accountability and willingness to resolve the issues.

3. Seeking Mediation or Alternative Dispute Resolution

To avoid prolonged litigation and potential damage to their reputation, Bering Yachts may explore mediation or alternative dispute resolution methods. Understanding these approaches can shed light on the company’s efforts to reach a swift and amicable resolution.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What are the main reasons behind the bering yachts lawsuit.

The Bering Yachts lawsuit primarily stems from alleged product defects, contractual breaches, and warranty disputes.

How has the lawsuit affected Bering Yachts’ reputation?

The ongoing legal disputes have raised concerns about the company’s reputation, potentially impacting customer trust and investor confidence.

Are there any precedents for such lawsuits in the maritime industry?

Yes, the maritime industry has witnessed similar lawsuits involving yacht manufacturers and shipbuilders, offering valuable insights into potential outcomes.

What role do expert witnesses play in the lawsuit?

Expert witnesses play a crucial role, providing specialized insights and analysis that can sway the court’s decision.

Has Bering Yachts taken steps to address the issues raised in the lawsuit?

Bering Yachts is likely to have implemented quality control measures and communication strategies to address the allegations and concerns.

What alternative methods of dispute resolution might Bering Yachts pursue?

In an effort to resolve the issues swiftly, Bering Yachts may explore mediation or alternative dispute resolution methods.

The Bering Yachts lawsuit has become a focal point of discussion in the maritime industry, highlighting the significance of adhering to quality standards and contractual obligations. As the legal disputes continue, the company’s response and communication will play a vital role in shaping the outcome and preserving its reputation. The insights provided in this article shed light on the complexities of the Bering Yachts lawsuit and the importance of addressing legal challenges promptly and responsibly.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

fleming yachts lawsuit

Nicky Fleming

Director of marketing.

Nicky Fleming was born in Hong Kong where her father, Tony Fleming was working for American Marine. She then moved to Singapore and later to England for college. Nicky trained in cooking and worked in restaurants in UK and later in California. When Tony's business partner Anton Emmerton died, Nicky stepped in to help Tony with general administrative work for Fleming Yachts. For five years, she and Tony were the only employees of Fleming Yachts. Nicky is now enjoying her position as director of marketing, based in California. Nicky is responsible for publishing our company magazine "Venturer" and is always keen to receive photos and cruising stories from Fleming Yachts owners and enthusiasts at [email protected]

<< Previous

  • Election 2024
  • Entertainment
  • Newsletters
  • Photography
  • Personal Finance
  • AP Buyline Personal Finance
  • Press Releases
  • Israel-Hamas War
  • Russia-Ukraine War
  • Global elections
  • Asia Pacific
  • Latin America
  • Middle East
  • March Madness
  • AP Top 25 Poll
  • Movie reviews
  • Book reviews
  • Personal finance
  • Financial Markets
  • Business Highlights
  • Financial wellness
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Social Media

Idaho city sued over arrests at church singing event

  • Copy Link copied

MOSCOW, Idaho (AP) — A former Idaho county commissioner candidate and a couple have filed a lawsuit against the city of Moscow alleging their First Amendment rights were violated after they were arrested on accusations of not following coronavirus safety measures last fall at a church singing event in the City Hall parking lot.

Gabriel Rench, a Republican who unsuccessfully ran for Latah County Commissioner in November, and Sean and Rachel Bohnet filed the lawsuit Wednesday in federal court, The Lewiston Tribune reported Thursday.

The lawsuit alleges Moscow police officers’ “reckless indifference” to their rights resulted in their arrest and detainment.

The lawsuit names the city of Moscow, City Supervisor Gary Riedner, City Attorney Mia Bautista, City Prosecuting Attorney Elizabeth Warner, Police Chief James Fry and multiple police officers.

Riedner said the city had not yet received the lawsuit as of Wednesday.

“This is a lawsuit in order to make reparations for their wrongful arrests and the fact that they were humiliatingly prosecuted for criminal activity when there was no violation of the law,” said Michael Jacques, an attorney representing the plaintiffs.

Police cited Rench, the Bohnets and two others for suspicion of violating the city’s public health emergency order at the event on Sept. 23 in the City Hall parking lot.

Moscow Mayor Bill Lambert issued the order requiring face coverings in public when physical distancing could not be maintained with people not in the same household.

Jacques said the singing event was held to protest the order.

All five residents pleaded innocent to the charges and the city dismissed the charges in January because the order did not specifically say it applied to media or religious activities.

The City Council unanimously approved later in the month an ordinance that does not exempt those activities from public health orders.

Rench claimed Wednesday that the council crafted the ordinance to “continually target religious members in our community and continually target political opponents that they disagree with.”

Sean Bohnet said he hopes the lawsuit brings “real justice to our situation.”

fleming yachts lawsuit

IMAGES

  1. 40 Years of Fleming Yachts History

    fleming yachts lawsuit

  2. Fleming Yachts: One of the worlds most successful Yacht Stories

    fleming yachts lawsuit

  3. Fleming Yachts

    fleming yachts lawsuit

  4. Fleming Yachts 55

    fleming yachts lawsuit

  5. Fleming Yachts

    fleming yachts lawsuit

  6. Fleming History

    fleming yachts lawsuit

COMMENTS

  1. Lawsuit could change brokers world

    Lawsuit could change brokers world. Jim Flannery. Updated: Jul 27, 2017. Original: Aug 1, 2010. $1.8 million award seems to dilute the protective value of the 'as-is' clause. A nearly $2 million judgment against a Florida yacht brokerage has left brokers puzzled and concerned as they reconsider - in light of this case - how much protection the ...

  2. Fleming or Marlow Yachts?

    fleming vs marlow i had the chance to look at both fleming 65 in cannes and 2 marlows (around 90-100 feet range) at fort lauderdale. besides the difference in quality another aspect that differs is the general detailing for a better boat. my opinion there has been more efforts, thoughts spent for designing a better boat in the fleming. marlows has a lot of ideas, but seems they are more ...

  3. Yacht Brokers Associations Hit With Price-Fixing Conspiracy Suit

    Track Docket: 1:24-cv-20805. A group of yacht organizations and brokerages are facing a proposed class action accusing them of an agreement that resulted in inflated costs for the sale of vessels. The International Yacht Brokers Association, the Yacht Brokers Association of America, and several large yacht brokerages enforced an agreed-upon ...

  4. Update: James River Files Suit Against Fleming for Failing to Close

    James River Group Holdings Ltd. announced it has filed a lawsuit against Fleming Intermediate Holdings for its failure to complete the $277 million acquisition of its casualty reinsurance ...

  5. Fleming Yachts

    The Fleming model line includes the 55, 58, 65, and 78. ... that every Fleming Yacht bears the distinctive look of the first boat. Of course, they are very different under the hood as we continue to develop and refine the designs as a result of feedback, experience and new technology.

  6. Yacht sales agents hit with US class action over commission fees

    The proposed class action lawsuit, opens new tab from Wyoming's Ya Mon Expeditions LLC was filed on Thursday in Florida federal court against the Miami-based International Yacht Brokers ...

  7. Lawsuit claims luxury yacht company, with headquarters in Raleigh, is a

    The lawsuit contends a Raleigh-based luxury yacht company is really just a front to pay for vacations and enrich offshore companies - and doesn't even make the 130-foot yachts listed on its ...

  8. Grenier v. Marlow Yachts, Ltd et al 8:2011cv02083

    Plaintiff: Francine Grenier: Defendant: Marlow Yachts, Ltd and Marlow Marine Sales, Inc: Case Number: 8:2011cv02083: Filed: September 13, 2011: Court: US District ...

  9. Rench et al v. Moscow et al 3:2021cv00138

    Date Filed Document Text; May 12, 2021: Filing 12 LITIGATION ORDER AND NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC SCHEDULING CONFERENCE Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 6/1/2021 11:00 AM in Boise - Courtroom 7 before Judge Ronald E. Bush. On or before MAY 25, 2021, the parties must file with the Court the JOINT Litigation Plan and Discovery Plans.

  10. Frances Howard, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States of America; Us

    United States of America; Us Sailing Association, Inc.; Waikiki Yacht Club, a Hawaii Corporation; Guy S. Fleming, Defendants-appellees, 181 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999) Annotate this Case US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 181 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999) Argued and Submitted: November 2, 1998Submission Deferred: April 27, 1999Resubmitted ...

  11. 40 Years of Fleming Yachts History

    And Fleming Yachts was going to be a part of the rise, with the evolution of the Fleming 55. Fleming 55. The original mould for this model was built for a 55-foot yacht, but the first eight of these were actually 50 feet — built with slightly shorter cockpits. By the mid '90s, this had been extended out to 55, and by the late '90s over ...

  12. Fleming Yachts for sale

    Fleming boats for sale on YachtWorld are listed for a variety of prices from $423,338 on the moderate end of the spectrum, with costs up to $6,250,000 for the most luxurious yachts. What Fleming model is the best? Some of the best-known Fleming models currently listed include: 55 Pilothouse, 58, 55, 65 and 65 Pilothouse. Specialized yacht ...

  13. A Fleming Yachts Owner Experience (Extended Cut)

    Hear from first time and longtime Fleming owners on why they chose Fleming, their experience with Fleming east coast US dealer Burr Yacht Sales, and how they...

  14. Megayacht=Mega Lawsuit (BLOG) (Video)

    Megayacht=Mega Lawsuit (BLOG) (Video) Nordhavn Fights To Survive After Boat Deal Goes Awry at Canada Border. Peter Swanson. Jul 27, 2017. Bob Conconi, a wealthy Canadian businessman and philanthropist, was overjoyed with his new Nordhavn 120 when he wrote: "You have to experience the majesty of Aurora, her stature and magnitude to get a ...

  15. Compare The Fleming Yacht Models For Sale

    A side-by-side comparison of Fleming Yachts. FLEMING 55. FLEMING 58. FLEMING 65. FLEMING 78. FLEMING 85. LOA Hull. 55' 9". 16.9 m.

  16. Idaho city announces $300K payment to people who were arrested during

    Three people who sued the city of Moscow for allegedly violating their First Amendment rights during a 2020 religious gathering will be paid a total of $300,000 to settle their civil lawsuit, the ...

  17. Fleming Yachts 78 (2021)

    As we've found with all Fleming Yachts, the 78 has a primary mission of accommodating an owner-operator and family members during an extended stay at sea, in...

  18. Bering Yachts Lawsuit: A Comprehensive Overview of the Legal Disputes

    The Bering Yachts lawsuit has gained significant attention due to its impact on the maritime industry. Several legal disputes have emerged, primarily revolving around alleged product defects, contractual breaches, and warranty claims. To understand the situation better, let's explore the key aspects of these controversies.

  19. Nicky Fleming

    For five years, she and Tony were the only employees of Fleming Yachts. Nicky is now enjoying her position as director of marketing, based in California. Nicky is responsible for publishing our company magazine "Venturer" and is always keen to receive photos and cruising stories from Fleming Yachts owners and enthusiasts at infomation ...

  20. Novaya Gazeta: Moscow City Court rejected a German expert's lawsuit

    Moscow City Court rejected a lawsuit against Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB), which was made by Johannes Rohr, a German expert on indigenous peoples. Rohr has challenged the decision of the FSB to ban him from entering Russia until 2069. Lawyer Ivan Pavlov, the head of the human rights association "Team 29", who represented the

  21. Idaho city sued over arrests at church singing event

    Idaho city sued over arrests at church singing event. Updated 8:44 AM PDT, March 25, 2021. MOSCOW, Idaho (AP) — A former Idaho county commissioner candidate and a couple have filed a lawsuit against the city of Moscow alleging their First Amendment rights were violated after they were arrested on accusations of not following coronavirus ...