X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On June 19, 2001, the M/V MR. BARRY and its tow, the T/B KIRBY 31801, allided with the Louisa Bridge in St. Mary Parish, La. Kirby Inland Marine L.P. owned the barge; Taira Lynn Marine Inc. owned and operated the tug; and the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (the state) owns the bridge. The cargo on the barge, a gaseous mixture of propylene/propane, discharged into the air as a result of the allision. Consequently, the Louisiana State Police ordered a mandatory evacuation of all businesses and residences within a certain radius of the Louisa Bridge. Taira Lynn initiated the underlying litigation under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. app. �183 (2000), in which several hundred claims were filed. The original proceeding also consolidated two declaratory judgment actions involving insurance coverage issues. Fourteen businesses and business owners (claimants) that are parties to this appeal filed claims in the limitation action seeking to recover damages under the general maritime law, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and state law. Because of the complexity of the case, the district court referred discovery to the magistrate judge who limited the initial phase of discovery to the claims alleging solely economic loss. Taira Lynn, Kirby Inland and the state then filed motions for partial summary judgment on the grounds that claimants’ recovery for economic losses unaccompanied by damage to a proprietary interest is barred by Louisiana ex. rel. Guste v. M/V TESTBANK, 752 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1985) (en banc). Those claims alleging direct property damage and/or personal injury as well as economic loss were not included in the motions. The district court concluded that it was “foreseeable that an allision between a barge and the Louisa swing bridge would disrupt the only means of ingress and egress to Cypremore [sic] Point.” Reasoning that the claims were confined to a limited geographic region and that the claimants were making commercial use of the bridge, the court endorsed a “geographic exception” to the rule barring recovery for economic losses absent physical damage and concluded that the claimants alleging solely economic losses should have an opportunity to present their claims in court. The court concluded that not all of the claimants alleged purely economic losses and thus, those claims survived the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court denied the motions for partial summary judgment as to each of the fourteen claimants. The court also concluded that the OPA and CERCLA claims were not ripe for summary judgment because they raised genuine issues of material fact and were outside of the scope of discovery. Taira Lynn, Kirby Inland, the state, and Water Quality Insurance Syndicate appeal the district court’s rulings. The only claims before this court are claims for purely economic losses. HOLDING:Reversed. The law of this circuit does not allow recovery of purely economic claims absent physical injury to a proprietary interest in a maritime negligence suit. In Robins Dry Dock & Repair v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 (1927), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a tortfeasor is not liable for negligence to a third person based on his contract with the injured party. In TESTBANK, this court concluded that Robins is a pragmatic limitation on the doctrine of foreseeability. TESTBANK recognized an argument in favor of an exception for commercial fishermen, but left the contours of such an exception for another day because the claims of the commercial fishermen were not before us. Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, 12 of the 14 businesses that are parties to this appeal suffered no physical damage attributable to the allision and thus, their claims are barred by TESTBANK. There is no geographic exception to the TESTBANK rule and there is no exception based on the number of claimants. The TESTBANK court expressly rejected the case-by-case approach urged by claimants, and adopted by the district court in the case at bar. Three claimants claims as commercial fishermen were not included in the motions for partial summary judgment; only their claims as wholesale fishermen were included. Accordingly, the district court erred in concluding that these claimants satisfied the commercial fishermen exception to TESTBANK. Their claims are for economic losses from their wholesale operations, and thus, they are barred by TESTBANK. While other jurisdictions may have abandoned or relaxed the bright line rule of Robins and TESTBANK, this circuit has not retreated from TESTBANK’s physical injury requirement. Therefore, the district court erred in denying appellants’ motions for partial summary judgment as to Cajun, Coastline, Cove Marina, Legnon, Riverfront, Twin Brothers, Blue Gulf, Big D’s and Bagala’s. These claimants have not suffered physical damage; therefore, their claims are barred by TESTBANK. Likewise, the district court erred in concluding that MTT, North American, and Morton suffered physical damage sufficient to satisfy TESTBANK. MTT’s and North American’s arguments that the physical presence of the gas on their property satisfies TESTBANK’s physical damage requirement are unpersuasive. These claimants have not raised an issue of fact as to whether the gas physically damaged their property nor caused any personal injury; indeed, as noted above, such claims were not subjects of appellants’ motions for partial summary judgment. The court is not persuaded by North American’s and Morton’s arguments that they mitigated damages by shutting down their operations. Mason and Advanced Materials claim to have suffered physical damage. Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, neither of these claimants suffered physical damage as a result of the allision. Mason’s crabs spoiled because the electricity was turned off during the evacuation not because of contact with the barge, the bridge, or the gaseous cargo. Likewise, Advanced Materials claims losses from its inability to sell products that were in the process of being manufactured; it is not claiming that its property was damaged as a direct result of the allision. even if the court concluded that Mason’s and Advanced Materials’s inability to sell their products qualified as physical damage for purposes of TESTBANK, they would not be entitled to recover because their damages were not foreseeable. The claims at issue here are for economic losses resulting from the evacuation. None of the claimants has even alleged that it incurred costs in acting to contain the gaseous cargo; therefore, none of the claimants is entitled to recover under CERCLA. The district court erred in denying appellants’ motions for partial summary judgment as to the claims brought pursuant to CERCLA. Any property damage upon which claimants must rely to recover under 33 USC �2702(b)(2)(E) did not result from the discharge or threatened discharge of oil. Claimants have not raised an issue of fact as to whether their economic losses are due to damage to property resulting from the discharge of the gas. Therefore, Claimants cannot recover under OPA and the district court erred in denying appellants’ motions for partial summary judgment. OPINION:Stewart, J.; Benavides, Stewart and Owen, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.