July 22, 2014

Lozman v. Riviera Beach: When is a floating structure a “vessel”?

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, No. 11-626 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2013), holding that a floating house is not a “vessel” subject to federal admiralty jurisdiction.  That ruling resolves a split in the circuits with implications for regulation of and litigation involving casinos, hotels, restaurants, and similar structures. 

Kerri Barsh of GT Miami, co-chair of GT’s National Environmental Practice, represented the successful petitioner, Mr. Lozman, as part of a team led by Jeffrey Fisher of the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.

Mr. Lozman had a floating house with a flat bottom, no engine, no steering mechanism, and a design that relied on shore connections for power and the like.  He moored the house at a marina owned by Riviera Beach.  The City sued the house in rem under federal admiralty jurisdiction and prevailed. 

In order for the City to have prevailed, the house had to have been a “vessel” within the meaning of the Rules of Construction Act, 1 U.S.C. § 3.  Specifically, the house had to be “capable” of being “a means of transportation on water.”  The courts of appeals had split on whether the theoretical ability to transport people or things by being towed was sufficient, or whether the design of the structure had to make the structure practically capable of transporting things on water.  Board of Comm’rs of Orleans Levee Dist. v. M/V Belle of Orleans, 535 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2008)(floating is enough); De La Rosa v. St. Charles Gaming Co., 474 F.3d 185 (6th Cir. 2006)(floating casino is not a vessel).  The Supreme Court resolved the conflict in favor of a practicality test focused on the design of the structure.  The Court ruled in favor of Mr. Lozman that the house was not a “vessel.”

The opinion may be found by clicking here.

Briefs may be found posted here.

©2014 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author


David G. Mandelbaum co-chairs the firm's national environmental practice.  He often represents clients faced with problems under the environmental laws that have no conventional solution, or for which the conventional solution would yield an unacceptable result. While he regularly represents clients in lawsuits, he does not restrict his practice to litigation and has helped clients achieve satisfactory outcomes through regulatory negotiation or private transactions. As highlighted below, Mr. Mandelbaum has represented clients in some of the Superfund – particularly...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.