Third Circuit Issues Long-Awaited Ruling in OPA Liability Case

by Liskow & Lewis
Contact

On March 29, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its ruling in In re: Petition of Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd., as Owner of the M/T ATHOS I, Nos. 16-3552, 16-3867 & 16-3868 (3d Cir. Mar. 29, 2018).  ATHOS I had its genesis in a 2004 vessel allision and oil spill on the Delaware River between New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  The decision has particular relevance to the types of defenses that may be maintained against reimbursement claims brought by the United States Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) to recover funds expended in responding to an oil spill.

Background

The M/T ATHOS I was a single-hulled tanker owned by Frescati Shipping Company and certain related interests (collectively, “Frescati”).  The ATHOS I was contracted to deliver crude oil from Venezuela to a syndicate of CITGO interests, collectively referred to as “CARCO.”  Delivery was to occur at CARCO’s marine terminal in Paulsboro, New Jersey.

The ATHOS I successfully completed the 1,900 mile journey from Venezuela to Paulsboro, but its hull was pierced by a submerged anchor within 900 meters of its intended berth.  The allision resulted in a spill of approximately 264,000 gallons of crude oil into the Delaware River.  As the designated responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act (“OPA”), 33 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq., Frescati spent $143 million cleaning up the river.  Frescati was ultimately reimbursed $88 million by the United States pursuant to the OPA.

Following the cleanup, Fresacti initiated limitation of liability proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Among other parties, CARCO filed a claim in the limitation proceedings for damages associated with the spill.  Frescati counterclaimed against CARCO.  Additionally, the United States, which had reimbursed Frescati for certain spill-related expenses, filed suit against CARCO as a partial subrogee to some of Frescati’s claims.  These actions were consolidated into the ATHOS I litigation.

Procedural History

The case was originally tried in a forty-one day bench trial by Judge John P. Fullam, who found that CARCO was not liable for the casualty.  Frescati and the United States appealed and succeeded in vacating part of Judge Fullam’s ruling.  In the interceding period before remand, Judge Fullam retired, and the matter was re-assigned to Judge Joel H. Slomsky.  On remand, Judge Slomsky certified his familiarity with the record and recalled more than twenty witnesses over the course of a thirty-one day proceeding to address certain issues raised by the appeal.  Judge Slomsky ruled that (a) CARCO was liable to Frescati (and the United States as Frescati’s subrogee) for breach of contract (in particular, a safe-berth provision), (b) CARCO was further liable to Frescati for breach of a tort duty in its capacity as wharfinger, (c) CARCO had waived its limitation of liability defense, (d) CARCO was entitled to equitable recoupment, reducing its liability to the United States by 50%, and (e) both Frescati and the United States were properly awarded prejudgment interest.

On appeal, CARCO challenged the district court’s finding of liability, and all parties challenged the computation of damages.  The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of liability on Frescati’s contractual claim, but reversed on the tort claim.  The appellate court also reversed the district court’s finding that CARCO was entitled to assert an equitable recoupment defense against the United States’ subrogation claim.  CARCO had also waived any limitation of liability defense by failing to timely raise it.  Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s assessment of pre-judgment interest in favor of Frescati and the United States.

Key Points

  • Contract Liability: Breach of Safe Berth Warranty –

The Third Circuit’s holding on Frescati’s contractual claim was largely fact-driven.  The Frescati/CARCO contract included a so-called “safe berth warranty”, which guaranteed that CARCO’s berth would be safe for the ATHOS I, so long as the ship had a draft of 37 feet or less.  The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings that, at the time of the allision, the ATHOS I had a draft of 36’7”, and Frescati did not cause the allision through bad navigation or negligent seamanship (exceptions to the warranty).  Accordingly, CARCO was liable to Frescati for breach of contract.

  • Tort Liability: Potential Breach of Wharfinger Duty –

Although the contractual liability finding independently supported the district court’s judgment, the Third Circuit separately addressed the district court’s conclusion that CARCO breached a tort duty in its capacity as wharfinger to prospectively search for and clear, or provide notice of, obstructions in the approach to its berth.  The district court had ruled that CARCO’s wharfinger duty required it to periodically scan the approach to the dock for hazards of navigation using side-scan sonar technology and to remove, or provide notice of, any identified obstructions to approaching vessels.  The Third Circuit reversed, noting that this same technology had initially failed to locate the sunken anchor in the post-allision investigation.  Further, the court noted the unique risks presented by single-hulled vessels like the ATHOS I, which are no longer permitted in U.S. waters.  Because the district court’s proposed standard was unlikely to provide potential benefits outweighing its costs, the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s finding regarding breach of CARCO’s wharfinger duty.  Nevertheless, the court held that CARCO had “some duty to use reasonable diligence to provide the Athos I with a safe approach to its berth—a duty it may or may not have breached.”  Id. at 42.  The takeaway is that while a wharfinger has some duty to ensure a safe approach to incoming vessels, the Third Circuit was uncomfortable mandating the particular method selected by the district court.

  • Wharfinger’s Equitable Recoupment Defense –

As noted above, the OSLTF reimbursed CARCO for $88 million in cleanup costs.  Under the OPA, the United States therefore became statutorily subrogated to “all rights, claims, and causes of action” that Frescati had against CARCO.  In response, CARCO asserted the defense of equitable recoupment to argue that the United States’ recovery against it should be barred.  In short, CARCO argued that because various federal agencies monitored and maintained a federal anchorage immediately adjacent to CARCO’s berth, CARCO had been misled into believing that the Government was actively maintaining the approach to the berth in a safe condition.

On this claim, the Third Circuit noted that a subrogee (the United States) is entitled to assert all claims its subrogor (Frescati) may have against a third party (CARCO).  Likewise, the third party defending a claim brought by a subrogee may assert every defense it otherwise could have raised against the subrogor.  Thus, the third party’s liability to a subrogee cannot be greater than it would have been to the subrogor.  The particular issue raised by Athos I, however, was whether a third party may raise a defense against the subrogee it could not have maintained against the subrogor.  As noted above, the Third Circuit ruled that CARCO was liable to Frescati (and the United States by virtue of subrogation) only on the breach of contract theory.  CARCO’s purported defense relating to the conduct of third party federal agencies was an equitable defense unrelated to the contractual relationship between Frescati and CARCO (or Frescati and the United States).  The Third Circuit held that CARCO could “only assert defenses against the United States’ subrogated claims which it could have asserted against Frescati[.]”  Accordingly, CARCO was barred from raising the equitable recoupment defense against the United States, and the district court’s judgment was reversed in this respect.

Importantly, however, the Third Circuit noted that CARCO might have successfully raised the equitable recoupment defense by way of a direct third-party complaint or counterclaim against the United States.  In the context of the United States’ claim as subrogee after stepping into Frescati’s shoes, however, the defense was unavailable.  This raises a dire warning to defendants in cases involving subrogated claims.  It is critical to carefully distinguish in what capacity a certain party brings a claim in order to determine whether certain issues must properly be raised as defenses as opposed to offensive third-party or counterclaims.  Failure to assert a defense through the proper procedural mechanism may result in waiver (in CARCO’s case, significantly increasing the amount owed on the judgment).

  • OPA Limitation of Liability Defense –

In addition to its equitable recoupment defense, CARCO argued that a provision of the OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2607(d)(2)(B), limited its liability in the case to the same extent as Frescati’s (which had been limited to approximately $45 million).  The district court had held that CARCO waived the defense by failing to raise it with requisite clarity until nearly ten years after the start of the litigation.  Reviewing the record, the Third Circuit agreed, noting that CARCO relied on a provision in its original answer to Frescati’s suit which simply read, “The claims and causes of action set forth in the plaintiffs’ Amended Counterclaim are barred in whole or in part by the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.”  Id. at 56.  According to the Third Circuit, a general reference to the OPA in its entirety was inadequate to permit Frescati to determine that CARCO was a raising limitation of liability defense under § 2702(d)(2)(B).  Here again, Athos I serves as a cautionary reminder to parties regarding particularity of pleading. A party seeking to avail itself of a particular statutory defense should specifically identify the defense, rather than merely citing to the authorizing statute as a whole.

Conclusion

Athos I, which spanned more than a decade, demonstrates the extent to which OPA litigation may become protracted.  Additionally, it provides a warning to defendants in OPA litigation to carefully identify the claims and defenses at issue.  A subrogated claim by the Government may only be met by defenses that would have been available to the defendant in response to the original claims of the subrogor.  Any claims or defenses the defendant might have against the subrogee directly (but not in the context of the subrogated claim) must be raised in a third-party claim or counterclaim at the risk of forfeiture.  Moreover, any defenses a defendant seeks to raise under the OPA should be clearly identified in the answer – it is not sufficient to cite the OPA generally.  CARCO’s liability went from roughly $120 million (inclusive of significant pre-judgment interest) to a yet-to-be determined (on remand) sum greatly in excess of that amount by virtue of waived defenses.

Written by:

Liskow & Lewis
Contact
more
less

Liskow & Lewis on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.