## Facts

- On September 27, 1985, James Ignacio, Jr. and Steven Charfauros Manley were injured when the *Kadena de Amor*, a commercial tour boat owned by Esta Later Charters, Inc., exploded during painting work.
- On October 24, 1985, Manley’s parents signed a document purporting to release Esta Later from liability in exchange for $5,000.
- On December 20, 1985, counsel for Ignacio sent Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., Esta Later’s insurer, a written demand seeking $1 million for Ignacio’s injuries.
- On April 8, 1986, Ignacio and family sued Esta Later (and Fireman’s Fund) in Guam Superior Court seeking damages exceeding $2.5 million.
- Ignacio later amended the complaint; a second amended complaint filed September 25, 1987 added a new plaintiff, Richard Ignacio, who was conceived and born after the explosion.
- On September 16, 1987, Manley’s parents filed a wrongful-death complaint in Guam Superior Court against Fireman’s Fund, Esta Later, and Esta Later’s board of directors.
- On December 17, 1987, Esta Later and Fireman’s Fund filed a federal petition in the District of Guam seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. App. § 185 (as then in force).
- The district court stayed related proceedings and required accident-related claims to be filed in the limitation action.
- Ignacio and the Manleys moved to dismiss the limitation petition as untimely because it was filed more than six months after the December 20, 1985 demand letter and the April 8, 1986 complaint.
- The district court dismissed the limitation petition as untimely, and Esta Later and Fireman’s Fund appealed.

## Issues

1. Under 46 U.S.C. App. § 185, does the first written notice of a claim arising from an incident start a single six-month period for filing a limitation petition as to all potential claims from that incident, or does each new claimant or new claim start a fresh six-month period?
2. Were Esta Later and Fireman’s Fund barred from proceeding with limitation as to later-appearing claims (the Manleys’ complaint and the after-born child added by amendment) because the petition was filed more than six months after the Ignacios’ earlier written notice?
3. Are the Manleys equitably estopped from invoking the six-month time bar because they signed an earlier release?

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the limitation petition as untimely.
- The court held that the six-month period in § 185 begins when the shipowner receives the first written notice of a claim arising from the incident and runs as to all claims arising from that incident.
- Later-filed claims, later-added plaintiffs (including an after-born child), and other claimants’ later complaints do not restart the six-month filing period.
- The court rejected appellants’ equitable-estoppel argument based on the Manleys’ release and declined to excuse the late filing on that basis.

## Legal Principles

- A limitation petition under 46 U.S.C. App. § 185 must be filed within six months after the shipowner receives written notice of a claim.
- A written demand letter or a filed complaint can qualify as written notice if it reasonably informs the owner of a claim and the possibility of liability from the incident.
- When multiple claims arise from the same casualty, the statute provides a single six-month filing period triggered by the earliest written notice; additional claims do not create additional six-month windows.
- Adding a new plaintiff by amendment (even one conceived and born after the casualty) does not restart the six-month period when the claim still arises from the same incident.
- Equitable estoppel requires a showing that the party to be estopped engaged in conduct that misled the petitioner in a way that justifies barring the time defense; a prior release, without more, does not excuse an untimely limitation filing triggered by another claimant’s timely written notice.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Esta Later’s six-month deadline to file for limitation began when it received the Ignacios’ earliest written notice of claim, and because the limitation petition was filed well over six months later, it was untimely as to all claims arising from the explosion; neither later-filed suits, a later-added after-born child, nor the Manleys’ earlier release saved the petition from dismissal.


Esta Later Charters, Inc. v. Ignacio, 875 F.2d 234 (1989)