Stolt Parcel Tankers v. Det Norske Veritas

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 01-20949
Summary Calendar
_____________________
STOLT PARCEL TANKERS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DET NORSKE VERITAS A.S.
Defendant-Appellee.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-00-CV-1335)
---------------------
June 27, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Stolt Parcel Tankers, Inc. (“Stolt”)
appeals the district court’s dismissal of Stolt’s action against
Defendant-Appellee Det Norske Veritas A.S. (“DNV”), which dismissal
the district court grounded in contractual forum selection,
concluding that Stolt agreed to litigate actions of this nature in
Norway.
The claims asserted by Stolt against DNV eventuated after
Stolt contracted with Astilleros Espanoles, S.A. (“AESA”) for the

-- 1 of 3 --

2
construction of several ships. Each contract between Stolt and
AESA required AESA to engage DNV for survey services during
construction; specified that each vessel would be built in
compliance with DNV’s rules and regulations; and provided that
Stolt would not be bound to accept the vessels unless AESA produced
specified certificates. The contracts between Stolt and AESA also
stated that the contracting parties would be bound by decisions of
DNV regarding compliance with its own rules and regulations. Among
DNV’s rules are one that specifies Norwegian substantive law and
another that requires exclusive dispute resolution in Norwegian
courts, with venue in the municipal court of Oslo.
As required, AESA retained DNV for all relevant services in
connection with the construction of Stolt’s vessels, referencing
the Stolt-AESA contracts. After problems surfaced during sea
trials, Stolt contracted with DNV for review and supervision of
AESA’s calculations and its correction efforts. Stolt and DNV
agreed, inter alia, that any disputes would be subject to
arbitration in Oslo under a designated Norwegian statute.
The instant lawsuit was filed against DNV by Stolt in the
Southern District Court of Texas on allegations of negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. DNV filed a
motion to dismiss those claims on the basis of forum selection
provisions in DNV’s rules which, according to DNV, had been agreed
to by Stolt. In response, Stolt sought to dismiss its breach of
contract claim, acknowledging the requirement that it be arbitrated

-- 2 of 3 --

3
in Norway. Stolt insisted, however, that it had not agreed to the
forum selection clause for purposes of the negligence and negligent
misrepresentation claims; or, alternatively, that if forum
selection were incorporated by reference into any agreements
between Stolt and DNV, such a provision would not be applicable to
the negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims, as those are
unrelated to the subject contracts.
The district court dismissed Stolt’s claims without prejudice
to refiling in Norway, based on the forum selection clause and
denied all Stolt’s other motions as moot. Stolt timely filed a
notice of appeal.
We have carefully considered the record on appeal and duly
heeded the arguments and counter-arguments advanced by able counsel
in their well-crafted and helpful appellate briefs; in light of
which we have analyzed the district court’s extensive Memorandum
and Order for this case. As a result of our de novo review of the
district court’s grant of DNV’s Motion to Dismiss Based on the
Forum Section Clause and dismissal of Stolt’s motions as moot, we
are satisfied that the district court’s rulings are correct in all
respects and should be affirmed for the reasons expressed by that
court.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --