Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. OYSTER HARBORS MARINE, INC

ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
1:15-cv-10200 Search Pacer
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Massachusetts District Court
Date Filed: 
Jan 25 2015

INTRODUCTION  
1. This is an action for maritime property damages that occurred on or about July 11,
2
2014, while Mr. Eric Slifka was aboard his vessel,  E=Mc.
2
2. E =Mc was sold to Mr. Slifka by the Defendant, Oyster Harbors Marine, Inc.
3. Ace asserts a cause of action against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty
of fitness for a particular purpose and implied warranty of merchantability under the
Massachusetts General Laws.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.  This is a case of maritime jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1).
5. Venue is proper in this judicial district because the Defendant resides in this  
judicial district.   

THE PARTIES
6. Ace American Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Delaware with a principal place of business located at 436 Walnut Street, in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  
7. Ace provided insurance coverage to Mr. Slifka for his ownership interests in the
2
vessel, E=Mc.
8. Defendant, Oyster Harbors Marine, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a principal office at 122 Bridge Street in Osterville,
Massachusetts.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
9. On or about October 26, 2011, Mr. Slifka entered into a Sales and Purchase
Agreement with Oyster Harbors Marine, Inc., a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto
as “Exhibit A.”
10. Mr. Slifka agreed to purchase, and Oyster Harbors Marine, Inc. agreed to sell, a
2012 34’ Regulator Center Console SS: with Twin F350 4-Stroke Yamaha Outboard Engines.
2
11. On or about July 11, 2014, Mr. Slifka was aboard his vessel, E=Mc, traveling
through the Nantucket Harbor after having piloted the vessel from Osterville, Massachusetts to
Nantucket, Massachusetts.  
12. Mr. Slifka was operating the vessel to shuttle people back and forth to their
moored vessels in the Nantucket Harbor.
13. Mr. Slifka noticed a burning odor and opened the door to the vessel’s center
console where he saw a light haze of white smoke.
14. Mr. Slifka moored the vessel on an open mooring and proceeded to turn the two
battery switches to their “OFF” positions.
15. Mr. Slifka boarded another passing vessel.
16. Mr. Slifka’s vessel burned severely.
17. As the vessel was being towed in the water, it rolled over upside down.  
18. Mr. Slifka had no previous problems with operating the vessel, and there were no
prior indications of any problems with the vessel.  
19. Oyster Marine Harbors, Inc. sold and maintained the vessel.
20. Oyster Marine Harbors, Inc. installed a Lewmar Windlass, a bow thruster, and
other miscellaneous electronics on the vessel.   
21. Ace compensated Mr. Slifka for the property damage to the vessel and is
subrogated, to the extent of its payments, to the rights of Mr. Slifka.

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
AND IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
22. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as though the same
were set forth at length herein.
23. At all times material hereto, Oyster Harbors Marine, Inc., impliedly warranted
that the vessel was of good and merchantable quality, fit for its particular purpose, and free from
defects.
24. Oyster Harbor Marines, Inc., breached its implied warranty of merchantability
because the vessel was defective.
25. Oyster Harbors Marine, Inc. knew that Plaintiff’s insured was relying on Oyster
Harbors Marine, Inc.’s skill and judgment to select and furnish goods that were appropriate for
use in recreational boating.  
26. Plaintiff’s insured relied on Oyster Harbors Marine, Inc.’s skill and judgment to
furnish goods that were appropriate for use in recreational boating.
27. Oyster Harbors Marine, Inc. breached its implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose because the vessel was defective.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ace American Insurance Company, demands judgment against
Defendant, Oyster Harbors Marine, Inc., in an amount in excess of $200,000.00 including pre-
judgment interest and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the
circumstances.

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.

Javascript is required to view this map.