Genesis Marine v. Darrow — Written-Notice Trigger for Limitation: Severity Allegations and Developing Records Can Start the Six-Month Clock (Settlement Demand Not Required)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Date: January 16, 2026
Posture: Vessel owner’s federal limitation action dismissed on summary judgment as untimely; Fifth Circuit affirmed.

1) Introduction

This case arises from a maritime personal-injury claim by Brandon Darrow, a tankerman employed aboard Genesis Marine, LLC’s towing vessel M/V Anaconda and associated barges (collectively, the “Vessel”), valued at approximately $12.5 million. Darrow suffered a serious back injury while handling mooring lines in December 2020 and subsequently underwent multiple surgeries and treatments. He filed a Louisiana state-court tort suit in December 2021 alleging negligence and unseaworthiness and seeking wide-ranging damages, including ongoing disability and inability to return to duty.

Three years after the state suit was filed, Genesis initiated a federal limitation proceeding (December 13, 2024) seeking to limit liability to the Vessel’s value. Darrow moved for summary judgment, contending the limitation action was untimely under 46 U.S.C. § 30529(a) because Genesis had received written notice—more than six months earlier—of a reasonable possibility that Darrow’s claim could exceed $12.5 million.

The core issue on appeal was not whether Darrow gave written notice of a claim (Genesis essentially conceded that), but when Genesis had written notice sufficient to trigger the six-month clock—particularly whether such notice required a later $20+ million settlement demand or whether earlier pleadings and medical/developing records sufficed.

2) Summary of the Opinion

3) Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

A. In re Bonvillian Marine Serv., Inc., 19 F.4th 787 (5th Cir. 2021) (“Bonvillian”)

Bonvillian overruled the Fifth Circuit’s earlier characterization of the limitation filing deadline as jurisdictional. In this opinion, Genesis attempted to leverage that shift, arguing the district court effectively resurrected a rigid, “pseudo-jurisdictional” regime.

The Fifth Circuit rejected that framing: Bonvillian changes the label (jurisdictional vs. claim-processing), but not the consequence when the defense is properly raised—courts still enforce the statutory time bar. The panel reinforced that nonjurisdictional deadlines can be mandatory and enforceable if timely invoked, setting up the bridge to United States v. Kwai Fun Wong and later Fifth Circuit authority.

B. United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (2015)

Kwai Fun Wong supplies the modern Supreme Court framework: deadlines are presumed nonjurisdictional absent a clear congressional statement. This opinion uses it to explain why Bonvillian reclassified the limitation time bar, while underscoring that reclassification does not authorize courts to ignore deadlines.

C. Liao v. Bondi, No. 25-60427, 2025 WL 3654054 (5th Cir. Dec. 17, 2025) (quoting Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012))

The panel relied on Liao v. Bondi to make an operational point: nonjurisdictional does not mean optional. When a litigant timely objects, courts apply the deadline. This supports enforcement of § 30529(a) even after Bonvillian.

D. In re Eckstein Marine Serv., L.L.C., 672 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2012) (“Eckstein”), overruled in part on other grounds by Bonvillian

Eckstein is the opinion’s principal “trigger” precedent. It articulates the Fifth Circuit’s core test: the six-month period begins only when the owner receives written notice revealing a reasonable possibility that the claim will exceed vessel value. Two aspects of Eckstein are central here:

• Low threshold: The “reasonable possibility” standard is “not particularly stringent.” Claimants need not plead a dollar amount.
• Owner’s risk allocation: Once the possibility is raised, the owner must investigate promptly; uncertainty is borne by the owner.

Genesis’s principal argument—that notice did not exist until an August 2024 settlement demand and supplemental reports—was treated as incompatible with Eckstein, which held pleadings alleging severe injuries and broad damages can be enough even before full medical permanence is established.

E. In re the Complaint of RLB Contracting, Inc., 773 F.3d 596 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (“RLB Contracting”), overruled in part on other grounds by Bonvillian

RLB Contracting contributes a key evidentiary principle: aggregate notice. A series of writings may be considered together; “considering the correspondence as a whole” approximates what the owner should have understood.

Although the underlying harm in RLB Contracting involved catastrophic injuries and a death, the Fifth Circuit treated the case as relevant not for factual similarity but for method: the district court properly reviewed the totality of writings and information available to Genesis (pleadings, medical updates, vocational/economic materials) rather than waiting for a single, explicit “limit-exceeding” demand.

F. Complaint of Morania Barge No. 190, Inc., 690 F.2d 32 (2d Cir. 1982) (“Morania Barge”)

The panel used Morania Barge for a practical limitation-policy proposition: the Act aims to force prompt action; where doubt exists, owners are not excused and may file limitation even when totals are uncertain. This supports the Fifth Circuit’s allocation of risk to the vessel owner once the “reasonable possibility” threshold is met.

G. Summary judgment framework cases

The opinion also cites and applies general summary-judgment standards (e.g., Sanders v. Christwood; Hamilton v. Segue Software Inc.; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.; Lamb v. Ashford Place Apartments L.L.C.; Little v. Liquid Air. Corp.; Renwick v. PNK Lake Charles, L.L.C.; Env't Conservation Org. v. City of Dallas) to reject Genesis’s attempt to repackage a legal dispute over the trigger date as a “genuine dispute of material fact.”

3.2 Legal Reasoning

A. The governing test: written notice + reasonable possibility of damages exceeding vessel value

The court reiterated that the six-month period in 46 U.S.C. § 30529(a) begins only when written notice reveals a reasonable possibility that (1) a claim will be made and (2) damages may exceed vessel value (the second prong being the disputed one). This is a fact-intensive inquiry—but the facts here were largely undisputed; the dispute concerned the legal significance of those facts.

B. Why Genesis had triggering notice well before June 13, 2024

The court identified multiple earlier “notice-rich” writings and developments—each pointing to severe injury, potential permanence, inability to work, extensive medical treatment, and broad damages categories:

• Early medical seriousness (2021): massive disc herniation, severe stenosis, multiple surgeries, high pain reports, neurologic deficits, and anticipated lumbar fusion.
• State-court petition (Dec. 23, 2021): allegations of serious physical and psychological injuries, and that Darrow was “rendered unfit for duty” and remained unable to return as a seaman; broad compensatory/special/general damages claimed without a cap.
• Genesis’s own litigation posture (Aug. 2022 answer): Genesis asserted an affirmative defense stating the damages sued for “greatly exceed” vessel value—supporting (at minimum) that Genesis understood the exposure could exceed the limitation fund.
• Discovery and medical/vocational updates (2023–early 2024): written materials reflecting ongoing nerve damage, failed back syndrome, inability to return to work, and continuing procedures.
• Economic damages report (Jan. 2024): future life care and earnings-related totals estimated at $3.5M (exclusive of general damages and other categories), reinforcing that the claim encompassed substantial components beyond medical bills alone.

Against this backdrop, the court treated Genesis’s “we needed the August 2024 $20M demand” position as legally inconsistent with the “reasonable possibility” standard. The standard asks whether the owner should reasonably foresee the claim might exceed vessel value—not whether the claimant has delivered a final quantified number, a settlement demand, or a fully matured expert record.

C. Claim-processing (not jurisdictional) does not change enforceability

Genesis’s Bonvillian argument failed because the district court did not treat the statute as jurisdictional; it enforced it as a mandatory claim-processing rule after a timely objection. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that reclassifying the deadline does not license courts to “ignore” it.

D. Summary judgment: “trigger date” as legal conclusion, not factual dispute

Genesis argued there was a “genuine dispute of material fact” as to when notice occurred. The court reframed this as a disputed legal conclusion about when the writings crossed the “reasonable possibility” threshold. Because Genesis admitted the key underlying events and documents, the case was suitable for summary judgment.

E. Use of Genesis’s affirmative defense

The court rejected Genesis’s contention that the district court improperly treated the affirmative defense as a binding judicial admission. The district court explicitly stated the “judicial admission” question was unnecessary. Instead, the affirmative defense was simply part of the record showing Genesis’s contemporaneous recognition that damages claimed “greatly exceed” vessel value—considered alongside medical and other evidence.

3.3 Impact

A. Practical effect on limitation strategy in the Fifth Circuit

• Earlier triggers are likely: Vessel owners cannot wait for a settlement demand or a fully quantified expert suite if earlier pleadings and medical/developing documentation reveal severe injuries and broad damage claims.
• Investigation obligation is reinforced: Once the “reasonable possibility” is raised, the burden shifts to the owner to investigate promptly and decide whether to file a limitation action.
• Record aggregation matters: Courts may synthesize pleadings, correspondence, discovery responses, medical notes, and vocational/economic materials to determine when notice arose.

B. Doctrinal effect: reaffirmation of Eckstein post-Bonvillian

While Bonvillian changed the jurisdictional label, this opinion confirms the Fifth Circuit’s operational approach from Eckstein remains robust: the “reasonable possibility” standard is not demanding, and owners bear the risk of uncertainty.

C. Litigation behavior incentives

• Owners may file more protective limitation actions earlier in high-value-vessel cases when pleadings allege permanent disability and broad non-economic damages.
• Claimants may emphasize disabling consequences in early pleadings (and provide written medical updates) knowing that such writings can start the limitation clock.
• State-court pleadings and discovery become more consequential to federal limitation timing, increasing the need for owners to monitor and evaluate the evolving written record.

4) Complex Concepts Simplified

• Limitation of Liability Act (basic idea): A vessel owner can sometimes cap (“limit”) tort liability to the value of the vessel plus “pending freight,” if the loss occurred without the owner’s “privity or knowledge.”
• Exoneration vs. limitation: “Exoneration” seeks a finding of no liability; “limitation” assumes potential liability but caps damages at the limitation fund.
• Written notice + “reasonable possibility”: The six-month filing clock starts when a claimant’s writing(s) give the owner enough information to reasonably foresee that damages might exceed the vessel’s value. It is not necessary that the claimant state an exact number.
• Claim-processing rule vs. jurisdictional rule: A jurisdictional rule affects the court’s power to hear a case; a claim-processing rule is a mandatory procedural requirement that must be enforced when properly raised—so missing the deadline can still end the case.
• Aggregate notice: Courts may consider multiple writings together (pleadings + letters + reports) rather than requiring one definitive document.
• Summary judgment (in plain terms): If the key facts are not genuinely disputed and the law favors one side, the court can decide the issue without a trial.

5) Conclusion

Genesis Marine v. Darrow reinforces a strict practical takeaway for vessel owners in the Fifth Circuit: the six-month limitation clock can be triggered by early pleadings and evolving written medical/vocational information showing severe, potentially permanent injury and broad damages—without any requirement of a later settlement demand or a specific dollar figure.

The decision also clarifies the post-Bonvillian landscape: the limitation deadline is nonjurisdictional but remains mandatory when invoked. Combined with the court’s willingness to examine the total written record, the opinion strengthens incentives for prompt investigation and earlier limitation filings when the claimant’s written submissions reasonably suggest exposure beyond vessel value.