Tug 'Allie-B'

Home ] Up ]

DMC/S&T/27/01
Tug Allie-B Inc. v. United States

11th Circuit Appeals Court: 2001 WL 1453910: 16 November 2001
Case note contributed by Healy & Baillie LLP of New York, attorney Jana N. Byron

LIMITATION: LIMITATION ACT 1851: CLAIMS UNDER PARK SYSTEM RESOURCES PROTECTION ACT (‘PSRPA’), 1990: WHETHER CLAIMS UNDER PSRPA SUBJECT TO LIMITATION ACT: CONFLICT OF STATUTES: MORE RECENT AND SPECIFIC PREVAILS

Summary
In a case where a vessel sought to limit its liability for a claim brought against it by the United States government under the PSRPA for damage to a reef in Florida, the Appeals Court held that the claim under PSRPA was not subject to limitation under the Limitation Act.

DMC Category Rating: Developed

u u u u u

Facts
The action arose from the grounding of the tug ALLIE-B near a reef in Florida’s Biscayne National Park, causing over US$3 million in damage to the park’s natural resources. Following the grounding, the vessel owner filed a Limitation Action seeking to limit recoverable damages to the post-casualty value of the ALLIE-B, plus her pending freight, an estimated amount of US$1.3 million in total. In its Answer in the Limitation Action, the US government sought over US$3 million in damages, claiming that pursuant to the PSRPA, it was entitled to all damages stemming from the grounding, without consideration for the Limitation Act or its statutory cap on damages.

The Limitation Act limits a vessel owner’s liability for maritime casualties to the post-accident value of the vessel plus her pending freight. The PSRPA, on the other hand, creates a separate cause of action that allows the government to bring claims against any person or instrumentality that causes damage to a United States park resource, and allows unlimited recovery for damages to the park and any secondary losses stemming from that damage.

Judgment
The Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the trial court’s holding that the Limitation Act was subordinate to the PSRPA and allowed the government to proceed with its claim for all damages to the park’s resources. The court surveyed the various conflicts between the two statutes. Based on the inconsistencies found, the Court concluded that the two statutes presented an irreconcilable conflict. The Court then went on to note that where two statutes are in conflict, the more recent and specific statute shall govern -- in this case the PSRPA. The Court continued that the PSRPA was the more specific statute because it was narrowly tailored to address incidents involving destruction, loss or injury to "park system resources" (as defined by the PSRPA) and allows the government to recover only for damages associated with such incidents, while the Limitation Act applied to maritime casualties generally. The Court therefore affirmed the lower court’s holding that the Limitation Act was inapplicable to claims under the PSRPA.

u u u u u

Comment
This was the first time that the issue, whether or not a claim under the PSRPA took precedence over the provisions of the Limitation Act, had been determined in the US courts.  

These Case Notes have been prepared with care, but neither the Editor nor the International and other Contributors can guarantee that they are free from error, nor that they contain every pertinent point. Reliance should not therefore be placed upon them without independent verification. The Editor and the International and other Contributors disclaim all liability for any loss of whatsoever nature and howsoever arising as a result of others acting or refraining from acting in reliance on the contents of this website and the information to which it gives access. The Editor claims copyright in the content of the website.