Scholarly Lectures and Writings: The Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act: Pitfalls for the Unwary  Presented at the prestigious Southeastern Admiralty Law Institute’s 2006 Seminar in Savanna, Georgia, this paper provides a detailed discussion of the benefits and pitfalls of the Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act.  The paper is designed to serve as a beacon for maritime practitioners to navigate their way through this rocky statutory provision often utilized by shipowners and marine underwriters in an effort to limit liability to the post-incident value of a vessel regardless of actual damages., 2006, Plowing Your Way into Environmental Liabilities in South Florida  Presented at the Fort Lauderdale Mariners Club 2006 Seminar, this paper showcases the liabilities, defenses and marine insurance implications associated with striking and grounding incidents resulting in environmental losses occurring in National Parks and Marine Sanctuaries., 2006, Ship’s Medical Negligence: Respondeat Superior or Strict Liability? Presented at the International Council of Cruise Lines 2006 Legal & Insurance Seminar, in Washington, D.C., this presentation illustrates shipowners’ direct and vicarious liability exposure stemming from malpractice of medical professionals working aboard their vessels., 2006, To Deny Coverage or Not Deny Coverage: Questions Underwriters Must Ask When Deciding to Accept a Marine Claim Presented at the Fort Lauderdale Mariners Club 2002 Seminar, this paper discusses the various issues underwrites face when deciding to accept coverage for marine losses. Included in this paper, is an analysis of how the current law treats denial of claims for the following: accuracy of insurance applications, proper notice of claim, navigational restrictions, seaworthiness, latent defects, recklessness, capture/seizure and change of owner/management., 2002

Verdicts and Settlements: Vacaru v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 2008 AMC 798 (S.D. Fla. 2008) Arbitration has become a marquee issue as the cruise line industry is now enforcing arbitration provisions found in crew employment contracts.  B&b is at that forefront of this new trend.  In this case, B&B obtained a dismissal of a crewmember’s Jones Act negligence claim in favor of foreign arbitration.  This decision represents the first reported personal injury case dismissed in favor of arbitration where the arbitration agreement was included in a collective bargaining agreement between the crewmember’s union and the cruise line.  This case extends the holding of prior cases which enforced arbitration provisions found in contracts regulated by crewmembers’ home countries (e.g. POEA cases) to collective bargaining agreements containing arbitration provisions negotiated between the seaman’s unions and the cruise lines., 2008, Upmal v. Paradise Divers, Inc. (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2007) In a fluxing area of law, B&B attorneys were successful in defeating a seaman's Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint to Add a Claim for Punitive Damages and obtained an order from a Florida State Court finding that punitive damages are no longer available under maritime law. This decision is in complete contrast with the Federal Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 496 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2007) handed down days earlier which re-affirmed the recovery of punitive damages in maintenance and cure claims at least in the Federal Court System, and at least until 11th circuit  visits this issue en banc., 2007, Hesterly v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 515 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (S.D. Fla. 2007)  A hot topic in maritime law is what obligations a cruise line owes its passengers for medical treatment received aboard its cruise ships.  On that front, B&B was successful in obtaining the first reported opinion which holds that a cruise line is not obligated to carry onboard Florida licensed physicians even though the ship leaves from and returns to a Florida port. Additionally, B&B was successful in dismissing claims for negligent supervision of the shipboard physicians as well as medical malpractice against the cruise line., 2007, Paradise Divers, Inc. v. Upmal, 943 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) After a trial court ordered the production of an attorney’s report and investigator’s materials concerning an alleged brain injury case, B&B attorneys appealed via a petition for writ of certiorari. B&B attorneys convinced the appellate court of the lower court’s error resulting in the appeals court issuing a mandate quashing the production. The opinion also represents the first time a Florida appellate court recognized reliance on former counsel’s advice as a defense to a seaman’s recovery of attorney fees and punitive damages under a maintenance and cure claim., 2006, Isberner v. Celebrity Cruises Inc., 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D. 266 (S.D. Fla. 2006) B&B was successful in dismissing a passenger’s breach of contract, negligence and detrimental reliance claims against a cruise line for personal injuries occurring while on a shore-side excursion.  This is the first case which holds that a cruise line is not contractually liable to a passenger for injuries sustained on a shore-side excursion. Further, this is the first case which finds that detrimental reliance is not a recoverable cause of action for passengers.  , 2006, Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. American Marine Holdings, Inc., 71 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 187 (M.D. Fla. 2006)  Brought on behalf of a marine underwriter, the attorneys of B&b prevailed under theories of negligence and strict liability in a suit brought against a prominent recreational vessel manufacturer.  The vessel suffered a hull-to-deck joint separation approximately 23 miles off the west coast of Florida.  No passengers were injured; however, the vessel was considered a total loss.  The boat manufacturer claimed the hull-to-deck separation was caused by owner abuse and “hard dockings.” , 2006, Jensens Twin Palm Resort & Marina v. Petrikonyte, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21199 (M.D. Fla. 2006)B&B attorneys defined the requisite safe-guards a stipulation must possess to preserve a shipowner’s rights before an injured party may stay Federal Limitation proceedings in order to prosecute his claim in state court., 2006, Dresdner Bank AG v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 463 F. 3d 1233 (11thCir. 2006) This case establishes that a tort lien against a vessel under Greek law is not considered a preferred maritime lien under United States shipping law.  As such, preferred maritime lien holders will rank superior to a Greek tort lien holder in the distribution of monies realized from the judicial sale of a vessel., 2006, In re: Waterfront License Corp., 231 F.R.D. 693 (S.D. Fla. 2005) B&B attorneys achieved dismissal of a limitation of liability action on timeliness grounds.  This case has significant impact on recreational marine litigation as it clarifies the “given to” or “filed with” provisions of the Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act – the action which triggers the Act’s six-month statute of limitations., 2005, Markowski v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2004) A Polish boiler repairman brought a complaint against the Firm’s client alleging claims under the Jones Act, failure to treat, warranty of seaworthiness and failure to provide maintenance and cure.  B&B attorneys, arguing that the Plaintiff was not a seaman, were successful in obtaining summary judgment.  The court held that the Plaintiff was not a seaman as a matter of law, but instead, a harbor worker/repairman and, thus, not entitled to seamen remedies., 2004, Callasso v. Morton & Co., 324 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (Fla. S.D. Fla. 2004) B&B attorneys succeeded in obtaining a dismissal of a seaman’s death case brought against a technical ship’s manager -- a Florida corporation who maintained a place of business in the state -- based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens.  The court dismissed the case on FNC grounds as B&A was able to show that all day-to-day decisions were made by its master at sea and as such the requisite contacts with Florida, or the United States as a whole, were not met., 2004, Nurkiewicz v. Vacation Break U.S.A., Inc., 771 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) For decades, lower state courts in Florida were bound to follow the appellate decisions of the Third District Court of Appeals allowing seaman to recover punitive damages for the willful nonpayment of maintenance & cure benefits.  B&B challenged this case law and in so doing obtained the only Florida Appellate decision to hold that seamen are no longer entitled to punitive damages for the willful failure to pay maintenance & cure. A captain, while provisioning his vessel, injured his back.  He brought a claim against the yacht owner under the theories of Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and failure to provide maintenance and cure.  B&B attorneys argued that their client was entitled to summary judgment based upon the Walker Doctrine since the captain was in authority aboard the vessel and failed to choose a safe alternative means to place stores aboard the vessel, the activity he was engaged in at the time of his back injury.  Further, Keith Brais argued that punitive damages for the alleged willful failure to provide maintenance and cure were no longer available as a matter of law.  The trial court granted summary judgment and Plaintiff appealed.  In an en banc decision the Appellate Court agreed, upholding the Walker Doctrine as an available defense to claims brought by high ranking shipboard employees who choose unsafe methods of completing work.  The Nurkiewicz opinion also represents a landmark decision since until the opinion, Florida courts recognized a seaman’s ability to seek punitive damages for his employer’s willful failure to provide maintenance & cure., 2000, Collins v. Dolphin Cruise Line, 625 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) B&B attorneys successfully obtained an appellate opinion enforcing a cruise ticket’s one-year suit time limitation issued to the plaintiff’s travel companion.  The opinion resulted in a dismissal of a case brought by a passenger who waited 18 months after the accident to file suit against the cruise line.  The appellate court was not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that she never physically held or controlled the ticket., 1993, Dolphin Cruise Line, Inc. v. Rubin, 603 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) The attorneys of B&B were successful in attaining an appellate court opinion which directed the trial court to dismiss an action brought by a personal injury claimant against a cruise line on improper venue grounds where the suit was filed in a county were the cruise line did not operate or have property., 1992

Educational Background: Before attending law school, Mr. Brais graduated from Massachusetts Maritime Academy with a B.S. degree in Marine Engineering and a United States Coast Guard (U.S.C.G.) Third Engineer's Unlimited Hosepower, Steam and Motor., 1981