Gloucester Daily Times (8/14/86)
By Pamela Glass
Washington – The bill intended to ease the maritime insurance crunch was soundly defeated by the House yesterday, and the bill’s author blames greedy lawyers and misguided consumer groups.
“It was a combination of intimidation and obfuscation that worked,” said Rep. Gerry Studds.
The Cohasset democrat, whose district includes the New Bedford and Cape Cod fishing communities, made these stinging remarks after a 241-181 vote killed the measure. In the final tally, the bill’s supporters couldn’t even muster a majority, never mind the 282-vote, two-thirds majority required to pass the measure according to special rules ender which it was being considered. The final tally was 241-181, with the entire Massachusetts delegation voting in favor, except House speaker Thomas O’Neil, who normally doesn’t vote.
Studds said the nation’s trial lawyers, with the help of four influential consumer groups, staged a “highly campaign to kill his bill, which would cap a boat owner’s accident liability and require certain safety equipment on commercial fishing boats. Studds said he will try to bring the bill back to the floor again before Congress adjourns for the year on Oct. 3. He conceded; however, that this will be very difficult considering the crowed congressional calendar and strong opposition from the House Judiciary Committee and the nation’s trial lawyers.
“It’s my own impression that it’s effectively dead for this Congress,” Studds told reporters after the vote. “The Groups that sought to kill it have succeeded.”
Members of the Association of Trial Layers of America, including several maritime attorneys from Massachusetts, canvassed Capital Hill this week outlining their opposition to the bill, and, according to Studds, threatening to withdraw campaign contributions to those who voted for it.
Studds said at least two colleagues told him they would oppose the legislation for fear of losing campaign money from the lawyer’s group. Studds said the bill’s defeat is a perfect example of how congressmen who know little about a pending bill can be easily swayed by persuasive and often distorted arguments by lobbyists.
“The entry into the game in the last 48 hours of a will-financed lobby with the threat to withhold campaign contributions made a difference,” he said.
But Robert Havel, spokesman for the lawyer’s group, denied that threats were used.
“There were no threats made,” he said, ” I think some of people we contributed to actually didn’t vote with us. We had 12 lawyers and members of admiralty law section lobby; it was all quite open.”
The group also objected to suggestions by Studds earlier this week that lawyers were exploiting injured fisherman for their own financial gain.
“Trial lawyers around the country deeply resent Rep. Studds’ suggesting that representing the victims of fishing accidents or their survivors somehow indicates a desire to see them injured or killed,” association president Robert Habush said in a statement.
“We are totally in favor of increased safety on fishing vessels and of increased benefits to those injured on them,” he said.
“We believe that had Mr. Studds worked through the normal process instead of trying to ram through an ill-advised bill that needs further work and amendments, a good product could have been achieved.”
The lawyers’ group mounted an extraordinary campaign, Studds said, but distorted several key facts – such as the lawyers’ claims that the mandated safety equipment requirement wouldn’t apply to all fishing boats.
“That’s just not true,” Studds said. All fishing boats, regardless of their age, would have been required to comply. Studds said the groups also distorted the reasons why fishermen’s insurance problems require special congressman attention. The congressman stressed that the bill had the united support of the fishing industry, fishermen and insurers. Consumer groups, including advocate Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen, joined the opposition early yesterday morning when they sent letters to all House members saying the bill is “fatally flawed.”
The letter, also signed by the Consumer Union, U.S. Public interest research Group and the Consumer Federation of America, said the current national insurance crisis can’t be solved by “cutting off the rights of the most seriously injured fishermen.”
Under the bill, a fishermen with a temporary disability would have received 80 percent of his wages or $30 a day, whichever was greater, plus all medical expenses, and would not have had to sue to get it. A permanently disabled fishing boat crew member would have had to go to court, but would have been limited to $500,000 plus medical expenses, except in cases involving gross negligence or willful misconduct.
Unlike most workers, injured fisherman are not covered by traditional workers compensation laws, but instead are covered by federal maritime laws that also cover seamen on merchant ships.
The bill also would have mandated safety features such as distress beacons, marine radio systems and survival suits for boats operating in cold waters, such as those off Alaska and New England. Consumer and lawyer groups have traditionally opposed legislation to do with the U.S. fishing industry, Studds said. “They’re thinking of Bhopal (India, where a leak at a Union Carbide plant killed thousands last year), rather than the (fishing boat) Mediera out of New Bedford.”
