STEPHEN M. CALDER

PHILADELPHIA

HENRY C. LUCAS, III

PHILADELPHIA

Chapter 2

LOSS OF LIFE, INJURY AND ILLNESS

(1) Liability for loss of life of, or personal injury to, or illness of, any person, excluding, however, unless otherwise agreed by endorsement hereon, liability under any Compensation Act to any employee of the Assured (other than a seaman) or in the case of death to his beneficiaries or others.

Protection hereunder for loss of life or personal injury arising in connection with the handling of cargo of the vessel named herein shall commence from the time of receipt by the Assured of the cargo on dock or wharf or on craft alongside the said vessel for loading thereon and shall continue until delivery thereof from dock or wharf of discharge or until discharge from the said vessel on to another vessel or craft.

(2) Liability for hospital, medical or other expenses necessarily and reasonably incurred in respect of loss of life of, personal injury to, or illness of any member of the crew of the vessel named herein or any other person. Liability hereunder shall also include burial expenses not exceeding Two Hundred ($200) Dollars, when necessarily and reasonably incurred by the Assured for the burial of any seaman of said vessel.

(3) Liability for repatriation expenses of any member of the crew of the vessel named herein, necessarily and reasonably incurred, under statutory obligation, excepting such expenses as arise out of or ensue from the termination of any agreement in accordance with the terms thereof, or by mutual consent, or by sale of the said vessel, or by other act of the Assured. Wages shall be included in such expenses when payable under statutory obligation, during unemployment due to the wreck or loss of the said vessel.

COVERAGE IN GENERAL

Fleet owner assigned one of its permanent crewmembers to lash together two Navy barges "borrowed" for the purpose of a fireworks display, and when crewmember was injured, sought coverage under its fleet P & I policy; held even though crewmember could still sue owner under the Jones Act, owner was not covered by policy for injury occurring on non-listed vessel. City and County of San Francisco v. Underwriters at Lloyds, 141 F. 3d 1371, 1998 A.M.C. 1617 (9th Cir. 1998),

Oil platform worker was injured while being lowered in a personnel basket from the oil platform to the deck of a vessel, and claim was made for coverage under vessel's P & I policy; held policy providing indemnity "against the liabilities of the assured ... in respect to the vessel" does not cover accidents in which the vessel had no part, and no coverage was available sincejury found vessel was not at fault. Smith v. Tenneco OilCo., Inc., 803 F.2d 1386, 1987 A.M.C. 1681 (5th Cir. 1986).

Oil platform worker filed suit after being struck by an empty personnel basket being lowered to the deck of a service vessel; platform vessel owner was subsequently dismissed from the case and then sought to recover defense costs under the vessel charterer's P & I policy; held, owner was entitled to a defense under the indemnity clause of the vessel charter and the blanket additional assured provision in the charterer's policy. Clement v. Marathon Oil Co., 724 F. Supp. 431 (E.D. La. 1989).

After tug charterer's employee was injured during cargo operations on barge, the employer's general liability insurer settled the employee's claim and then sought indemnity under separate policy covering employer for charterer's legal liabilities; held, coverage under Form SP 23, which was incorporated into the charterer's legal liability policy, extended to cargo handling operations on both the tug and barge. Cigna Ins. Co. v, Anglo American Ins, Co., Ltd, 1997 WL 729076, 1997 A.M.C. 2913 (D. Alaska 1997).

Tug deck hand was injured by dynamite explosion while working as a pile-driver on attached barge during dredging operation; held, tug owner's P & I policy did not cover employee's injury because the policy did not insure against liability for injuries to employees engaged in operations "wholly disassociated" from the operation of the tug. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. Aetna Ins. Co., 254 F.Supp, 263 (E.D. Mich, 1966).

Tug owner's P & I policy covered injury to rig employee sustained while removing cargo from barge, despite clause excluding damages as a result of towing, because assisting in the unloading of the barge was an integral part of the tug's operation and such assistance was part of the duties of the crewmembers. Upper Columbia River Towing Co. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 179 F. Supp. 705, 1960 A.M.C. 389 (D. Ore. 1959).

Marine policy provided liability coverage for "damages for all loss of life [and] bodily injury" in connection with private pleasure use of yacht, but excluded liability between or among members of the assured's family; held, state statute voiding exclusions of intra-family claims applies to ocean marine insurance, and claim of assured's father for personal injuries was within coverage. Acadia Ins, Co. v. McNeil 711 A.2d 873, 1998 A.M..C. 1986 (N.H. 1998), answer to certified question confirmed, 144 F.3d 881 (1st Cir. 1998).

Employee on gaming casino boat sued employer for sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and infliction of emotional distress; on motion for summary judgment by employer's insurer, held, a P & I policy does not cover non-maritime claims because such claims are unrelated to the employer's role as vessel owner, but the policy will cover maritime claims for emotional distress under the Jones Act and claims for unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure, Plaintiff stated viable claim under the Jones Act and for maintenance and cure, but failed to allege conduct sufficiently egregious to prove vessel unseaworthy due to an unfit crew. Williams v. Treasure Chest Casino, L.C.C., 1998 WL 42586, 1998 A.M.C. 1300 (E.D. La, 1998).

Yacht owner sued marine insurer for indemnity and defense of claim by girlfriend who contracted sexually transmitted disease from owner while on board yacht; claim did not have sufficient connection with use of yacht to trigger coverage, Peters v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 67 Cal.App.4th 808, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 326, 1999 A.M.C. 397 (1998).

P & I insurer disputed coverage for liability to claimant struck by bullet fired on shore by assured's employee, held, policy only covered liabilities arising from losses suffered by assured in its capacity as owner, and even if assured was liable under principles of respondeat superior, there was no causal relation between vessel's operation or ownership and the employee's negligent act. American Motorists Ins. Co. v. American Employers Ins, Co., 447 F. Supp. 1314, 1978 A.M.C. 1467, 1474 (W.D. La. 1978), remanded, 600 F.2d 15 (5th Cir, 1979),aff'd by opinion after remand, 608 F.2d 624 (1979).

Crewmembers were injured in a highway accident sixty miles from the vessel while being transported by van to the vessel; held vessel owner's liability for resulting personal injury claims was within coverage of P & I policy. St. Paul Ins. Co. v, American Fidelity Ins. Co., 1996 WL 650128,1996 A.M.C. 2458 (E.D. La. 1996), aff'd, 105 F.3d 654 (5th Cir. 1996).

Employee on assured's seafood processing boat drowned, and P & I coverage for the wrongful death claim was disputed on the basis decedent was a "processor" rather than a member of the crew; held claim was outside coverage that was limited to crewmembers, but insurer owed (and breached) its duty to the assured in the first instance to defend complaint alleging crewmember status. Underwriters at Lloyds v. Denali Seafoods, Inc., 729 F. Supp. 721 (W.D. Wash. 1989), aff'd, 927 F.2d 459, 1991 A.M. C. 3000 (9th Cir. 1991).

Barge owner's employee was injured during pile loading operation, and excess marine insurer denied coverage on the basis of an exclusion of the assured's liabilities to "members of the crews of any vessel owned or operated by the assured;" held, as defined in McDermott Int'l v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337 (1991), a crew member is anyone who performs the work of a vessel and contributes to the vessel's function or the accomplishment of its mission, and since barge employee met the Supreme Court's definition, his injury was not covered, Williams v. Fab-Con, Inc., 990 F.2d 228, 1994 A.M.C. 1815 (5th Cir. 1993).

Two Venezuelan trainees died and a third was injured in sinking of jackup vessel, and insurer denied coverage on the basis of an exclusion of liability for bodily injuries to "crewmembers;" held, even if insurer had not waived its right to assert exclusion, the term "crewmember"was not defined in the policy and is ambiguous, and must be construed against the insurer. In re Cudd Pressure Control, Inc., as owner and operator M/V HOUMAS, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4678 (E.D. La. 2000).

Seaman working as divers' tender on service vessel slipped on diesel oil on dock and was injured, and assured sought liability coverage under policy endorsement for injury which "occurs while diving;" held, that because exclusions and ambiguities are strictly construed against the insurer, the endorsement is deemed to include the entire diving operation in and out of the water. Kelloch v. S&H Subwater Salvage, Inc., 397 F. Supp. 73 8, 1974 A.M.C. 2516 (E.D. La. 1972).

Crew member was injured three days after corporate owner of tug sold all its stock and replaced its directors and officers, and the new corporate owner settled the claim and sought reimbursement under P & I policy; held, the assured was barred from recovery by its violation of the policy provision against "changes of management" without the insurer's approval, which voided the policy. Parfait v. Central Towing Inc., 660 F.2d 608, 1982 A.M. C. 698 (5th Cir. 1981), petition for rehearing denied, 667 F.2d 118 9, 1982 A.M.C. 1865 (5th Cir. 1982).

After seaman's estate obtained judgment against vessel owner in excess of primary P & I policy limits, excess insurer sought to prevent primary insurer from applying against the policy limits the amounts paid for attorney's fees and defense costs; held, unambiguous wording in primary policy included defense costs within policy limits, and even if wording were ambiguous, the construction to be adopted must include defense costs so as to favor the assured rather than the excess insurer, since otherwise the assured would have to bear those costs. Geehan v. Trawler Arlington Inc., 547 F. 2d 132, 1976 A.M. C. 25 (1st Cir. 1976).

Seaman's suit against vessel owner and P & I insurer was settled for an amount in excess of the primary P & I policy limits, and because policy included legal fees in the coverage, primary insurer sought to reduce its share of the settlement by the attorney's fees and defense costs incurred in defending the claim; held, in the absence of an express defense agreement among assured, primary insurer and excess insurer, the primary insurer is deemed to have incurred the expenses for its own defense and could not deduct them from the policy limits. Verrett v. Ordoyne Towing Co., Inc., 1977 A.M.C. 795 (E.D. La. 1974).

LONGSHORING EXCEPTION

Crew member attached shore-side steam hose to vessel fitting while vessel was in process of discharging oil cargo, and was injured when hose burst; held, crew member was not engaged in stevedoring work and therefore stevedoring exception clause in P & I policy did not apply. Tidewater Oil Co. v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection &1ndemnityAssoc., 1935 A.M. C. 936 (S. Ct. N.Y. 1935).

Shore-based barge cleaner fell into hold of barge, and coverage for unseaworthiness claim was contested by workmen's compensation insurer; held, exclusion in employer's liability section of policy as to liability under workmen's compensation laws was not sufficiently specific to preclude coverage. Harris v. Olympus Terminals & Transport Co., 516 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1975).

Workmen's compensation and employer's liability policy, which covers sums the assured is obligated to pay because of bodily injury sustained by an employee in the course of employment, includes the assured's liability for maritime remedies under the Jones Act and for unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure. Garcia v. Queen, Ltd., 487 F.2d 625, 1973 A.M.C. 2425 (5th Cir. 1973).

Shore-based net mender subject to Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act fell on board docked fishing vessel, and P & I insurer and workmen's compensation insurer contested responsibility for the settlement of the resulting claim held, exclusion in P & I policy as to liability to employees under any compensation act did not apply, such that both the P & I and the workmen's compensation policies covered the claim. Voisin v. Ocean Protein, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 173, 1971 A.M.C. 464 (E.D. La. 1970).

Injured barge employee received payments under Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, then ' filed suit under Jones Act and for unseaworthiness, and insurer on workmen's compensation and employer's liability policy contested coverage, held, exclusion in employer's liability coverage as to workmen's compensation operated only to distinguish different coverages and did not prohibit claims for damages under applicable coverage of employer's liability section. Brickley v. Offshore Shipyard, Inc., 270 F. Supp, 985, 1967 A.M.C. 1886 (E.D. La. 1967).

OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE

Assured sought coverage under multiple P & I policies for asbestos exposure claims; held, the "continuous trigger" rule of state law applied because no established admiralty rule governs asbestos-related injuries, and no compelling need exists for a uniform federal rule. Skinner Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 1996 A.M. C. 1517 (W.D. Wash. 1996).

Each asbestos claim by a seaman against a vessel owner arises from a separate "occurrence," such that deductible in P & I policy applies to each claim and assured has the right to demand full coverage under the policy as to each claim in which the claimant suffered asbestos exposure, and therefore asbestos injury, during the policy period. Dicola v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Assoc. (In re Prudential Lines, Inc.), 158 F.3d 65, 1999 A.M.C. 609 (2d Cir. 1998)(applying New York law).

Sand blaster asserted Jones Act claim for silicosis contracted by exposure to silica dust over five-year period; held, by the terms of the policies, only the insurer who had the risk on the last day of exposure to silica dust could be liable. McMillian v. Coating Specialists, Inc., 427 F. Supp. 54 (E.D. La. 1976).

Seaman employed as sandblaster and spray painter contracted silicosis from exposure to silicon dioxide over eleven-year period, and coverage was disputed as between prior policies of employer's liability insurance and P & I insurance; held, employer's liability coverage was defined to apply only when last day of exposure occurred during policy period, and since disease manifested during P & I policy period, P & I insurer was solely responsible for indemnifying employer. Froust v. Coating Specialists, Inc., 364 F. Supp. 1154, 1974 A.M.C. 204 (B.D. La. 1973), aff'd, 494 F.2d 1352 (5th Cir. 1974).

ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE/DEDUCTIBLE

Where vessel owner was insured under P & I policies over several years, each initial exposure of a seaman to asbestos during a policy period is treated as a separate occurrence, a single deductible is applicable to each claim under a policy, and assured has the right to demand that one policy pay full coverage for each claim in which a seaman suffered asbestos exposure, and therefore injury, during the policy period. Dicola v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Assoc. (In re Prudential Lines, Inc.), 158 F.3d 65, 1999 A.M.C. 609 (2d Cir. 1998) (applying New York law).

Five employees of assured asserted claims arising from exposure to sludge being transported from assured's gas treatment facility, and assured sought coverage of policy limits as to each claim; held, each employee's injury was a separate occurrence because P & I policy failed to define an cc occurrence," and therefore policy limits applied to each claim. Exxon Corp. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 791, 1998 A.M.C. 913 (5th Cir. 1997).

Claim was made that five deaths resulting from a capsizing should be treated as separate occurrences under P & I policy that stated "each occurrence shall be treated separately, for a series of claims hereunder arising from the same occurrence shall be treated as due to that occurrence;" held, under the "causation theory," all of the deaths resulted from the single occurrence of the capsizing and one policy Emit would apply, but without deduction of defense costs. Albany Ins. Co. v, Blain, 1987 A.M.C. 1469 (N.D. Cal. 1987).

Ferry collision resulted in 78 deaths, and claimants asserted each death was separate occurrence triggering policy limits for each claim; held, one "accident or occurrence" results when damage to a variety of persons or objects arises immediately from a single cause, and therefore P & I insurer was obligated to pay only $300, 000 for aggregated claims; insurer was not, however, entitled to include costs of pursuing declaratory judgment action within policy limit. McKeithen v. S. S. Frosta 430 F Supp. 899, 1978 A.M.C. 31 (E.D. La. 1977).

Deductibles under P & I policies are intended to free underwriters from small claims; they are not to assure that payment will be made only to solvent policyholders and insurer may not defeat obligation to indemnify by showing that assured's portion of payment was advanced by third party or financed in some other fashion. Liman v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Assoc., 299F.Supp.106,1969A.M.C. 1669 (S.D.N.Y. 1969), aff'd 417F.2d 627 (2nd Cir.1970), cert. denied, 3 97 U. S. 93 6, 90 S. Ct. 946 (1970).

ADDITIONAL ASSURED

Platform worker was injured while unloading equipment from a workboat, and after being held liable, platform owner sought coverage as an additional assured under P & I policy issued to workboat owner; held policy identified platform owner as additional assured only in respect of claims "which may be brought by the named Assured's employees," and therefore platform owner had no coverage as to claims by its own employees. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., Inc, v. Mont Boat Rental Services, Inc., 799 F.2d 213 (5th Cir. 1986).

Crew member brought action against bareboat charterer of crewboat for injuries arising out of crew change in stormy weather conditions; charterer was named as additional assured on owner's P & I policies, but insurers contested coverage on grounds that charterer was not acting as "owner;" held, charterer's orders for crew change were issued in the capacity of an "owner pro hac vice" and therefore its liability was within coverage. Offshore Logistics Services v. Mutual Marine Office, 462 F.Supp.485, 1981 A.M. C. 1154 (E.D. La. 1978).

Oil rig worker was injured while attempting to transfer from a crewboat to his employer's drilling rig; after paying a share of the settlement, employer sought reimbursement from the crewboat owner's P & I policy;held, employer was deemed to be an additional assured under provision extending coverage to "anyone for whom the vessel is working," but employer's liability was not covered since it arose out of negligence as owner of the rig and as an employer, not as a vessel owner. Gryar v. Odeco, Inc., 719 F.2d 112, 1986 A.M.C. 1359 (5th Cir. 1983).

Vessel owner's P & I policy named the charterer as additional assured, and charterer sought coverage for claim arising from the charterer's negligent operation of a crane in removing a welding machine from the deck of the vessel; held, claim was excluded from coverage because the vessel contributed nothing more than the inert locale for the accident, and the crane operation was not related to the operation, navigation or management of the vessel. Lanasse v. Travelers Ins. Co., 450 F.2d 580,1972 A.M.C. 818 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 921(1972).

Barge owner chartered tug and crew to tow its barge; tug employee fell in open hatch of barge and sued both the barge owner and his employer, and barge owner sought coverage under tug's P & I policy; held barge owner was named as additional assured in the tug's policy only with regard to tug as a "named vessel," and therefore was not covered for its negligence as barge owner in leaving the hatch open. Wedlock v. Gulf Mississippi Marine Corp., 554F.2d 240,1977A.M.C. 1935 (5th Cir. 1977).

Barge owner sought coverage under tug's P & I policy as to claims arising out of allision with submerged gas line; held, barge owner was named as an additional assured only "in respect of the insured tug, and liability was premised on its negligence as "a service company anxious to perform services for its customers without delay" in directing tug captain to proceed through a dangerous area without a guide boat or pipeline charts. Dow Chemical Co. v. Tug Thomas Allen, 349 F.Supp.1354, 1974 A.M. C. 781 (E.D. La. 1972).

The owner, demise charterer and sub-bareboat charterer of a fishing vessel were named assureds in a layered employer's liability policy, and the demise charterer also had separate employer's liability and umbrella policies. The vessel broke apart at sea, causing deaths and injuries to the crew and loss of the vessel, due to the negligence of the sub-bareboat charterer as the employer of the crew. The insurer on the layered liability policy settled the claim and sought contribution from the demise charterer's insurers; held, no contribution would be allowed since the negligent employer was a named assured only under the layered liability policy, and when one of two policies covers a negligent employee, while the other covers his employer who has a right of indemnity against the employee, the insurer of the employee must bear the entire loss. Berkeley v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 407 F. Supp. 960, 1976 A.M. C. 856 (W.D. Wash. 1975).

Supply boat owner's P & I policy permitted the boat's charter to oil rig owner, and named rig operator as an additional assured; boat captain slipped on mud accumulated on deck of boat due to negligence of the rig operator, who sought coverage under P & I policy; held coverage denied because rig operator was covered only for conduct "as owner" of supply boat, neither the supply boat nor her owner was at fault, and liability of rig operator was premised on its negligence as a rig operator. LaCross v. Craighead, 466 F. Supp. 880, 1982 A.M. C. 2692 (E.D. La. 1979).

Boat captain serviced company yacht and was authorized to use yacht at his own expense for fishing trips with friends and relatives; held, captain was a permissive user and omnibus assured under P & I policy, such that coverage extended to captain's negligence on fishing trip with passengers unknown to yacht owner. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Gulf Weighing Corp., 352 F.Supp. 335,1974 A.M.C. 2478 (E.D. La. 1972).

INDEMNITY CLAIMS

Pilot fell while transferring by ladder from vessel to pilot launch and brought suit against vessel owner, who in turn sued launch owner for indemnity or contribution; after contributing to settlement of pilot's claim, launch owner sought coverage from its marine insurer; held, exclusion in policy as to "any claim for loss of life, illness or injury to pilots who are members of the Virginia Pilot Association" barred coverage because it extended to any claim whose basis was injury to a pilot, regardless of the procedural route taken for the claim to reach the insurer. Virginia Pilot Assoc. v. U S. Fire Ins. Co., 1991 A.M. C. 1915 (E.D. Va. 1991).

Repairman was injured aboard a dredge and settled his claim against the owner, who then recovered indemnity from the repairman's employer under the Ryan doctrine governing the warranty of workmanlike service. The employer was assured under a general liability policy and an employer's liability policy, and both insurers denied coverage; held, exclusion in general liability policy as to bodily injury to any employee of the assured was sufficient to exclude liability under the Ryan warranty, while exclusion in employer's liability policy as to persons subject to the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act was sufficient only to exclude direct liability for employees' maritime injuries and did not exclude coverage for indemnity liability originating from an employee's maritime injury. Parfait v. Jahncke Service, Inc., 484 F.2d. 296, 1973 A.M.C. 2447 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 957, 94 S. Ct. 1485 (1974).

INSOLVENCY OF ASSURED

Seamen and trustee for bankrupt vessel owner adopted "recycling arrangement" to settle personal injury claims whereby funds were disbursed to each seaman but were immediately returned to trustee as non-recourse loans, and trustee then sought recovery from P & I insurer; held the trustee's payments were sham transactions and were sham transactions and failed to trigger the indemnity obligation of P & I insurer. Dicola v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Assoc. (In re Prudential Lines, Inc.), 15 8 F. 3 d 65, 1999 A.M. C. 609 (2d Cir. 1998) (applying New York law).

Seamen obtained default judgments against insolvent assured, then sued P & I insurer under New York direct action statute; held insurer's obligation on indemnity policy does not arise until after assured suffers actual monetary loss and seamen had no right of action under New York law; however, case was remanded to district court for determination of whether New York insurance law violated equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. Ahmed v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection &Indemnity Assoc., 640 F.2d 993, 1981 AM. C. 897 (9th Cir. 1981). On remand, held that statutory exemption of marine insurance policies from general prohibition against use of assured's bankruptcy as a defense to third party actions was not unlawfully discriminatory against merchant seamen and did not violate equal protection clause. Ahmed v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection &Indemnity Assoc., 1982 A.M.C. 1228 (N.D. Cal. 1982), aff'd per curiam, 701 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1983).

Seaman brought suit against P & I insurer to recover on default judgment unpaid because of assured's insolvency; held, New York law permissibly enforces provision of indemnity policy that insures shipowner against loss, damage and expense which shipowner "shall become liable to pay and shall pay," and prohibition of direct actions against marine insurance policies does not deny seamen equal protection under federal or state constitutions. Miller v. American Steamship Owners MutualProtection &Indemnity Assoc., 509 F.Supp. 1047,1981 A.M.C. 903 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).

Loading supervisor sued vessel owner and P & I insurer for injuries incurred when mooring line parted; vessel owner was insolvent and insurer sought retroactive cancellation of its policy for nonpayment of premiums or "release calls;" held insurer remained liable under policy, and could not offset unpaid calls against judgment amount, because nonpayment occurred subsequent to accident and Louisiana law bars insurers from avoiding coverage due to assured's insolvency. Weiland v. Pyramid Ventures Group, 511 F.Supp. 1034, 1981 A.M.C. 2846 (M.D. La. 1981).

Where P & I underwriters refused to defend personal injury claims against a bankrupt shipowner, the shipowner's trustee was, under New York law, entitled to indemnity from the underwriters if trustee paid the full amount of judgments or settlements exceeding the policy deductible under an agreement where each claimant agreed to refund the deductible amount to the bankrupt's estate in exchange for recognition of his claim in that amount as a general creditor of the bankrupt. Liman v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Assoc., 299 F.Supp. 106,1969 A.M.C. 1669 (S.D.N.Y. 1969), aff'd, 417 F.2d 627 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 936 (1970).