Reinforcing the Evidentiary Threshold for Causation in Maritime Wake-Damage Claims: Albano v. Perih (11th Cir. 2025)

Introduction

In Peter Joachim Albano v. Patric J. Perih, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed the sufficiency of evidence required to defeat summary judgment in admiralty negligence suits premised on vessel-wake damage. Peter Joachim Albano—originally joined by two corporate vessel owners—claimed that Captain Patric Perih recklessly generated an excessive wake that damaged boats moored at Miami-Dade County’s Bill Bird Marina. The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding Albano’s proof of causation speculative. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. While unpublished, the decision consolidates and clarifies existing precedent on causation in maritime torts, emphasizing that circumstantial or anecdotal proof, social-media footage, and post-incident observations cannot substitute for concrete, non-speculative evidence linking a defendant’s conduct to the plaintiff’s harm.

Summary of the Judgment

• Procedural Posture: Appeal from a Southern District of Florida order granting summary judgment for the defendant in a negligence action brought under admiralty jurisdiction.
• Key Holdings:
  • Speculative evidence—even when buttressed by video of an unidentified vessel—cannot establish the causation element of maritime negligence.
  • An expert’s or officer’s opinion that a wake “could have” caused damage, without eliminating other plausible sources, is insufficient to create a genuine factual dispute.
  • Because causation failed, the Court did not reach the damages element.
• Outcome: District Court’s summary judgment affirmed; Albano’s claim dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Brady v. Carnival Corp., 33 F.4th 1278 (11th Cir. 2022) – Reiterated the de novo standard for reviewing summary judgment and the obligation to view evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant.
• Ireland v. Prummell, 53 F.4th 1274 (11th Cir. 2022) – Restated what constitutes a “genuine issue of material fact.”
• Cordoba v. Dillard’s, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2005) – Clarified that speculation creates a “false issue” insufficient to defeat summary judgment; central to the panel’s reasoning.
• Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, 586 U.S. 446 (2019) – Cited to frame the federal courts’ role as “federal common-law courts” in maritime matters.
• Fuentes v. Classica Cruise Operator Ltd., 32 F.4th 1311 (11th Cir. 2022); K.T. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 931 F.3d 1041 (11th Cir. 2019) – Supplied the four-part negligence test used by the Circuit.
• Smith v. United States, 497 F.2d 500 (5th Cir. 1974) – Provided definitions for “cause in fact” and “proximate cause.” Binding in the Eleventh Circuit under Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981).
• Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381 (11th Cir. 1985) – Cited to justify dismissal of corporate parties who failed to secure counsel on appeal.

Legal Reasoning

The Court advanced a step-wise rationale:

1. Summary-Judgment Framework: Citing Rule 56(a) and Brady, the panel reiterated that speculation cannot create genuine issues of fact.
2. Maritime Negligence Elements: The Court mapped the negligence test (duty, breach, causation, damages) but focused on the third prong—causation—because its absence was dispositive.
3. Evidentiary Assessment:
   • Officer Moschiano’s opinion was equivocal; he conceded other vessels might have caused the damage in a “very busy” waterway.
   • The social-media video did not positively identify Perih’s vessel, nor did it show the incident in real time relative to Albano’s claimed damage.
   • No witness or record established the Wellcraft’s pre-incident condition; invoices for later repairs could not fill that gap.
   • Miami-Dade County’s own records showed no reports of wake damage on the relevant date.
4. Application of Cordoba: Because Albano’s assertions required the court to infer causation across multiple speculative links (busy inlet, unidentified wake, unknown timing), the panel held that summary judgment was appropriate.

Impact on Future Litigation and Admiralty Law

• Heightened Proof Requirements: Plaintiffs alleging wake-related damage in busy waterways will need concrete evidence—eyewitness testimony, vessel-tracking data, AIS logs, or expert reconstruction—demonstrating that the defendant’s wake more likely than not caused the particular damage.
• Social-Media Evidence: Videos without metadata, vessel identification, or corroborating testimony will seldom satisfy Rule 56. Counsel must treat such footage as corroborative, not primary, evidence.
• Corporate Representation Reminder: The brief discussion of Palazzo serves as a caution: maritime corporate plaintiffs must secure counsel on appeal or risk dismissal.
• Insurance and Marina Operations: Insurers may invoke this decision to dispute claims lacking contemporaneous logs or surveys. Marinas might refine reporting protocols to preserve evidence of wake events.
• Summary-Judgment Strategy: Defense counsel can leverage the case to argue that speculative causation arguments—particularly in crowded maritime corridors—cannot proceed to trial.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Admiralty Jurisdiction: Federal courts possess special authority over maritime torts—incidents occurring on navigable waters—creating a uniform body of maritime common law.
• In Personam vs. In Rem: The claim was in personam, meaning Albano sued the individual boat operator, not the vessel itself.
• Wake: The wave pattern produced by a moving vessel. In narrow or “minimum wake” zones, excessive wakes can damage moored boats.
• Gelcoat & Transom Bracket: Gelcoat is a protective outer resin layer on fiberglass hulls; the transom bracket attaches the outboard engine to the hull.
• Summary Judgment: A pre-trial ruling that no material factual disputes exist requiring a jury, permitting judgment as a matter of law.
• Cause-in-Fact vs. Proximate Cause: Cause-in-fact asks “Did this act actually cause the harm?”; proximate cause asks “Was the harm a foreseeable result?”

Conclusion

Albano v. Perih underscores the Eleventh Circuit’s unwillingness to let negligence claims reach trial when causation hinges on conjecture—particularly in the context of maritime wake damage where multiple vessels traverse confined waterways. The decision reinforces Cordoba’s directive: speculation is a “false issue” and must be “demolished” at summary judgment. Practitioners should take heed—plaintiffs must gather contemporaneous, specific, and corroborated evidence of causation, while defendants have a robust framework for challenging claims premised on inferential leaps. Even though unpublished, the ruling is a persuasive articulation of the evidentiary threshold in maritime torts, likely to influence lower-court analysis within the circuit and beyond.