American Petroleum & Transport, Inc. v. City of New York
737 F.3d 185
2d Cir.2013Background
- American Petroleum and Transport, Inc. owned a barge (John Blanche) and was demise charterer of a tug (Caspian Sea).
- City of New York operates the Pelham Parkway Bridge on the Hutchinson River and purportedly failed to open the bridge due to a mechanical malfunction.
- Tug and barge were delayed about two and a half days after an upstream passage under the opened bridge.
- American incurred approximately $28,828 in claimed economic losses due to the delay, with no property damage.
- American sued City for common-law negligence and for violation of 33 U.S.C. § 494; the district court dismissed under Robins Dry Dock premiss, ruling no recovery for pure economic loss absent property damage, and American appealed.
- District Court dismissed, and the Second Circuit affirmed, accepting the broad Robins Dry Dock rule but noting potential exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Robins Dry Dock bars economic loss without property damage | American argues broad Robins Dry Dock rule should not bar its recovery | City contends Robins Dry Dock bars such recovery absent physical injury | Broad Robins Dry Dock rule applies; recovery denied |
| Whether 33 U.S.C. § 494 implies a private right of action | American contends federal policy supports recovery | City argues no private right of action implied | No implied private right of action under § 494 |
| Whether Robins Dry Dock should be interpreted narrowly or broadened | American urges narrow interpretation; exceptions possible | City supports broad rule to bar pure economic loss | Court adopts broad rule that economic losses are not recoverable without physical injury, with limited recognized exceptions noted but not applied here |
Key Cases Cited
- Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1927) (broad rule barring pure economic loss absent physical damage; narrow contract rule articulated)
- Agwilines, Inc. v. Eagle Oil & Shipping Co., 153 F.2d 869 (2d Cir. 1946) (recognizes narrow and broad Robins Dry Dock rationales; complex lineage)
- Kinsman Transit Co., 388 F.2d 821 (2d Cir. 1968) (foreseeability/remoteness considerations in torts involving complex damages)
- Barber Lines A/S v. M/V Donau Maru, 764 F.2d 50 (1st Cir. 1985) (discussion of Robins Dry Dock’s scope; practical/admin considerations cited by some as support for broad rule)
- East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (U.S. 1986) (products liability; left open whether a broad rule could exist for purely economic maritime losses)
- Guste, State of Louisiana ex rel. v. M/V TESTBANK, 752 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1985) (in banc discussion of Robins Dry Dock scope and remoteness)
- The Federal No. 2, 21 F.2d 313 (2d Cir. 1927) (early articulation related to contractual rights and economic loss)