Linkedin Instagram Facebook

Jules V. Massee

Partner

Tampa

P | (813) 223-1900

F | (813) 223-1933

[email protected]

VCard
LinkedIn

Jules V. Massee is a litigator representing clients in the towing, dredging, marine construction and shipping industries as well as yacht builders, ports, shipyards, marinas, foreign and domestic marine insurers, and recreational boaters throughout the state. He has successfully tried both bench and jury trials in state and federal courts in Florida and other jurisdictions. He focuses his trial practice on the areas of admiralty and maritime law including personal injury and wrongful death, commercial litigation, insurance coverage, property and casualty, and transportation.

Jules’ experience as an officer on a wide variety of commercial vessels gives him a unique insight into marine operations, having served on tugboats, passenger sailboats, cruise ships, and oil tankers. Originally from the New York City area, Jules graduated in 1996 from the SUNY Maritime College at Ft. Schuyler. During law school, he interned with the Honorable James G. Glazebrook in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Orlando.

Practice Areas

Insurance

Commercial Litigation

Personal Injury Defense

Premises Liability

Property & Casualty

Admiralty & Maritime

Transportation

Education

J.D., Florida A&M University College of Law, Magna Cum Laude; Editor-in-Chief: FAMU Law Review

B.S., with distinction, Marine & Business Commerce, SUNY Maritime College

  • Secured dismissal of LHWCA 905(b) wrongful death suit through Judgment on the Pleadings for Plaintiff’s failure to establish that defendant vessel had ever been turned over to contractor employers and thus vessel had no duty to decedent.
  • Obtained summary judgment for marine insurer on a maritime policy’s exclusion for property damage losses arising out of an accident while using a watercraft as a primary or permanent residence.
  • Made new law on appeal in the Eleventh Circuit, where panel adopted the Doxsee/McCarthy test and held that the district court improperly dismissed client bridge builder’s limitation of liability action against more than 200 claims for vibration damage, when the court used the wrong standard for what constitutes written notice of a claim.
  • Obtained $2.3 million judgment against defendant shipyard for engine room fire onboard client’s tugboat; Shipyard unsuccessfully sought to limit liability to $300,000 and presented expert opinion during a week-long bench trial that the tugboat was only worth $600,000.
  • Obtained dismissal on motion in personal injury suit where Plaintiff claimed permanent traumatic brain injury falling down recreational boat steps; Recovered over $10,000 in attorney’s fees.
  • Achieved partial summary judgment finding liability against defendant towing vessel, which knocked pier section into channel; recovered $multi-million settlement for Port Authority client’s property damage and obstruction claims after liability was established.
  • Obtained order granting summary judgment in LHWCA 905(b) wrongful death action against vessel on basis that diver’s invisible, unseen and unannounced underwater presence never triggered shipowner’s Scindia duties of care.
  • Defense verdict in a seaman’s personal injury jury trial. Plaintiff with preexisting arthritis claiming he sustained a knee injury while descending an alleged unsafe interior stairway on a tugboat. At trial, Plaintiff moved for the application of a negligence per se standard to be applied to the tug’s alleged OSHA violations. Defense defeated this motion, and prevented Plaintiff’s primary liability expert from testifying on the alleged OSHA violations. At closing, Plaintiff asked for over $600,000 in damages. The jury deliberated for 45 minutes and returned with a verdict for the Defendant.
  • Defense verdict in a recreational boat personal injury case. The Plaintiffs, a married couple living on a 60’ anchored sailboat, alleged the defendant’s 56’ motorboat caused a dangerous wake which caused damage to the boat and one of the Plaintiffs to sustain injuries. The plaintiffs further claimed these injuries resulted in a left total knee replacement, and sued for property damage, personal injury, mental anguish, and loss of consortium. The defense presented evidence the 56’ motorboat could not have caused a wave large enough to cause the damages claimed, and that the plaintiff’s sailboat was not properly anchored. The defense further presented evidence that the Plaintiff’s knee replacement was necessitated by degenerative conditions, not acute trauma. The jury deliberated for 10 minutes, and found for the Defense.
  • Defense verdict in wrongful death jury trial. Decedent drowned when his jet ski had engine trouble, and he drifted into Defendant’s docked tug and barge. Defense obtained partial summary judgment going into trial, and successfully moved in limine to limit the testimony of Plaintiff’s liability expert.
  • Defense verdict in bench trial on marine insurance dispute, where coverage was denied on a Vessel which had repeated water incursion in one of its engines. The Plaintiff appealed to the 2nd DCA, the judgment was affirmed. Because of the Proposal for Settlement served on the Plaintiff before trial, the defense recovered approximately$70,000 in attorneys’ fees.
  • Obtained a judgment for Plaintiff against a trespassing houseboat in Admiralty in rem proceeding. After 2 day bench trial, court found for the Plaintiff, awarding damages and ordering the houseboat sold. Houseboat owner appealed, and the case was argued before the 11th Circuit, who affirmed in all respects. This case was later taken up to the Supreme Court of the United States on the sole issue of whether the houseboat was a “vessel” for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, but did not remand, in 7-2 decision, with Justices Kennedy and Sotomayor dissenting.
  • Obtained favorable result in seaman’s personal injury bench trial. Seaman fell injuring his leg when transferring from barge to tug. Though seaman was awarded damages, they did not include future economic losses based on the argument that the plaintiff failed to prove such damages. Further, the award was reduced by 50% for the seaman’s comparative fault. Ultimately the award was less than the last settlement offer made before trial.

  • The Best Lawyers in America, Admiralty and Maritime Law (2023 – present)
  • Florida Super Lawyer, Rising Star, Law & Politics, 2012-2017
  • Top Attorneys in Florida, Transportation & Maritime, American Registry

  • Speaker: Fort Lauderdale Mariner’s Club Seminar  “The Perfect Claim: The Scope & Limitations of The Jones Act,” October 2022
  • Speaker: International Boatbuilders Exhibition & Conference, “Maritime Risk Management,” October 2019
  • Speaker: International Boatbuilders Exhibition & Conference, “Subcontractors and DIYers: The Risk and the Benefit,” October 2016

  • Florida
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
  • United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
  • United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  • Supreme Court of the United States

  • Maritime Law Association of the United States
  • Southeastern Admiralty Law Institute
  • American Bar Association’s Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section
  • Propeller Club of the United States, Port of Tampa
  • Claims and Litigation Management Alliance (CLM)
  • National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF)