Bertucci Contracting Co. v. Steele, 712 F.3d 245

On May 31, 2011, the vessel JULIE MARIE, owned by Bertucci, allided with the Leo Kerner Bridge in Louisiana.
The bridge sustained damage and was closed for pedestrians and vehicles for several days.
Bertucci filed a Limitation of Liability Act action; numerous claimants, including Appellants, answered in the limitation proceeding.
Carol Steele, on behalf of Barataria residents, filed a separate class action for damages from the bridge closure; district court consolidated with the limitation proceeding.
The district court dismissed Appellants' claims, ruling that maritime economic damages require physical damage to a proprietary interest per Testbank.
The panel affirmed, holding that Appellants failed to plead physical damage to any proprietary property and thus could not recover under Testbank.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does maritime law bar pure economic damages absent physical damage to a proprietary interest?	Appellants argue Testbank should not apply due to lack of maritime activity by residents.	Bertucci argues Testbank controls and requires physical damage to a proprietary interest for recovery.	Yes; Testbank applies, restricting recovery to physical damage to proprietary interests.
Are Appellants within the Testbank rule despite no maritime activity?	Appellants contend a federal maritime claim may apply while avoiding Testbank’s limitations.	Defendant asserts no principled distinction; Testbank extends to similarly situated non-maritime claimants.	Appellants remain barred under Testbank; no principled distinction suffices.
May state-law remedies permit recovery where maritime law denies it?	Appellants seek state-law recovery for economic damages caused by bridge closure.	Maritime jurisdiction forecloses state-law remedies when admiralty denies recovery.	No; state law does not supply remedy when maritime claims are denied in admiralty.
Could some Appellants plausibly plead physical damages to recover?	Some claimants allegedly suffered injuries or damages related to access disruption.	Interference with access is not physical damage; no plausible physical damages pleaded.	No plausible physical-damage claims; dismissal affirmed.

State of Louisiana ex rel. Guste v. M/V TESTBANK, 752 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1985) (recovery limited to physical damage to proprietary interest)
Robins Dry Dock v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 (1927) (economic loss rule in maritime cases)
In re Taira Lynn Marine Ltd. No. 5, LLC, 444 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2006) (limits recovery to proprietors with physical damage)
Reserve Mooring Inc. v. Am. Commercial Barge Line, LLC, 251 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 2001) (economic damages require physical injury to property)
IMTT-Gretna v. Robert E. Lee SS, 993 F.2d 1193 (5th Cir. 1993) (no state-law substitute for denied admiralty remedy)
Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. M/V BAYOU LACOMBE, 597 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1979) (illustrates applicability of proprietary-interest requirement)