Barcliff, LLC v. M/V Deep Blue, IMO NO. 9215359
876 F.3d 1063
11th Cir.2017Background
- Technip (owner of M/V Deep Blue) contracted with O.W. Bunkers (O.W. UK) to purchase 850 metric tons of bunker fuel to be delivered in Mobile, AL; O.W. UK subcontracted downstream to O.W. USA, which subcontracted performance to Radcliff (local supplier).
- Radcliff delivered fuel on November 1, 2014; delivery was acknowledged by the ship’s chief engineer; invoices were exchanged up the chain but no payments were made.
- The O.W. Bunker Group collapsed into bankruptcy days after delivery; ING Bank (lender) had obtained security interests in O.W. entities’ receivables under an English-law Security Agreement and intervened claiming assigned rights.
- Radcliff sued in admiralty seeking a maritime lien on the Deep Blue to recover unpaid charges; Technip deposited the disputed funds into the court registry and ING intervened asserting O.W. UK’s lien had been assigned to ING.
- The district court held Radcliff had no maritime lien because it supplied the fuel on O.W. USA’s order (a subcontractor), while O.W. UK had a lien that was assigned to ING; Radcliff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Radcliff has a maritime lien under 46 U.S.C. § 31342(a) | Radcliff: delivery accepted by ship’s officer and thus lien arises as fuel was effectively supplied on owner’s order (or via ratification); Ken Lucky supports supplier’s lien | ING/Technip: Radcliff supplied on order of O.W. USA (a subcontractor), not the owner; subcontractor generally has no lien absent owner’s significant, ongoing involvement | Radcliff has no lien; general rule that subcontractors do not obtain liens applies and Radcliff failed to preserve/establish the exception on appeal |
| Whether O.W. UK ‘‘provided necessaries’’ (and thus had a lien) despite delegating delivery | Radcliff: O.W. UK did not physically supply fuel; thus it did not ‘‘provide’’ necessaries | ING: delegation is immaterial — causing delivery satisfies ‘‘provided necessaries’’; contractual performance by delegate counts | O.W. UK provided the fuel under § 31342(a) by contracting to supply and causing delivery; it had a lien |
| Whether O.W. UK’s maritime lien was assigned to ING under the Security Agreement governed by English law | Radcliff: lien was not a transferred ‘‘right, title or interest in respect of’’ receivables; only monetary receivable was assigned | ING: maritime lien is a right/interest securing the receivable and falls within the Security Agreement’s assignment language and commercial purpose | The Security Agreement assigned O.W. UK’s rights and interests in supply receivables, which includes the maritime lien; ING holds the lien |
| Standard of review for bench trial findings | N/A | N/A | Factual findings reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions de novo; no reversible error found |
Key Cases Cited
- Galehead, Inc. v. M/V Anglia, 183 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 1999) (general contractor can have lien when it procures necessaries; subcontractor generally cannot unless owner’s involvement is significant and ongoing)
- Marine Fuel Supply & Towing, Inc. v. M/V Ken Lucky, 869 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1988) (supplier obtained lien where parties admitted owner ordered fuel; not binding in Eleventh Circuit)
- In re Container Applications Int’l, Inc., 233 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2000) (clarifies limits of liberal construction statements in prior FMLA precedent)
- Crimson Yachts v. Betty Lyn II Motor Yacht, 603 F.3d 864 (11th Cir. 2010) (definition and attachment timing of maritime liens)
- Venus Lines Agency, Inc. v. CVG Int’l Am., Inc., 234 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2000) (bench-trial review standards in admiralty)