- Contact Us for a Free Consultation 305-668-6410
Fort Lauderdale Vessel Owners Seek Exoneration Under Maritime Law After Intracoastal Collision
Case Name: In the Matter of the Complaint of Conover Able III and Simon Ambrose
Case Number: 0:25-cv-60754-AHS
Jurisdiction: United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Filing Date: April 18, 2025
Parties Involved:
- Petitioners: Conover Able III (registered owner) and Simon Ambrose (owner pro hac vice)
- Vessel: 2019 Everglades 435, HIN RJDBA075G819
- Claimant (potential): Jennifer Jacobs, represented by The Law Offices of Aaron R. Coven
Filing Highlights Strategic Use of Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act in Recreational Boating Case
Incident Summary:
On November 9, 2024, around 11:00 p.m., a collision occurred on the Intracoastal Waterway just south of the Atlantic Boulevard Bridge in Fort Lauderdale. Petitioners’ 2019 Everglades 435, operated by Simon Ambrose, collided with a 1998 Pro-Line 25’ vessel allegedly driven recklessly by Michael Jones. The impact ejected three individuals from Jones’s boat. Petitioners assisted in their rescue. Michael Jones was arrested at the scene by Florida Fish and Wildlife for boating under the influence.
Petitioners deny any fault and seek exoneration or, alternatively, limitation of their liability under the Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act (46 U.S.C. § 30501 et seq.), citing the vessel’s value at $839,000. A letter of undertaking from the insurer has been filed as security.
Legal Analysis & Implications
The Purpose of the Limitation of Liability Act
The Limitation of Liability Act allows a vessel owner to limit liability for maritime incidents to the post-casualty value of the vessel and its pending freight—provided the incident occurred without the owner’s privity or knowledge. It applies to commercial and qualifying recreational vessels alike.
Here, the petitioners argue:
- The Everglades 435 was seaworthy and properly maintained.
- They acted with due care.
- The incident was caused by the reckless operation of the other vessel.
If successful, the petitioners’ exposure could be capped at $839,000, even if damages exceed that amount.
Legal Hurdles for Claimants
Claimants seeking damages must file claims in this limitation action and may face an injunction halting other lawsuits. To defeat limitation, claimants would need to show the owners had actual or constructive knowledge of conditions contributing to the collision—often a high burden in recreational contexts.
Trend & Policy Analysis
This case underscores a growing trend of invoking the Limitation of Liability Act in recreational boating cases, particularly in Florida’s congested waterways. While traditionally used by commercial operators, courts have seen more private yacht owners seeking protection under this 19th-century statute.
Recent federal rulings have generally upheld the act’s application to high-value pleasure craft, provided the owner can show lack of privity. However, some courts have pushed back when alcohol, poor maintenance, or negligent supervision are involved.
The inclusion of a letter of representation from attorney Aaron R. Coven for injured passenger Jennifer Jacobs signals forthcoming injury litigation. If negligence is found, and privity is established, the court could deny limitation, allowing full exposure.
Contact Us Today
Whether you are a boat owner seeking to protect your assets after an accident, or a potential claimant navigating maritime litigation, timing is critical. The Limitation of Liability Act imposes strict procedural deadlines—often requiring action within six months of receiving a claim.
To safeguard your interests, consult a maritime attorney familiar with vessel collision litigation and federal admiralty rules. The right strategy can mean the difference between full liability and protected limitation.