31 F.4th 320
5th Cir.2022Background
- Epic Companies, LLC contracted decommissioning of Gulf of Mexico oil platforms and hired a fleet including the heavy-lift vessel M/V Nor Goliath; separate towing companies provided tug services to move barges between the Nor Goliath and shore.
- Epic entered bankruptcy; the towing companies sought to recover unpaid towing charges by asserting maritime liens against the Nor Goliath under the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act (CIMLA).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Nor Goliath, holding the tug services did not constitute "necessaries" furnished to the vessel and therefore did not create maritime liens; the towing companies appealed.
- Central legal question: whether the towing companies’ services (towing barges used in the decommissioning operation) were "necessaries" furnished to the Nor Goliath such that CIMLA creates liens against that vessel.
- Towing companies argued the barges and towing were necessary to the Nor Goliath’s performance (and protected it from sea hazards); Nor Goliath countered the services were for barges (equipment of other vessels) and any benefit to Nor Goliath was indirect.
- The Fifth Circuit applied CIMLA stricti juris, found no evidence the Nor Goliath ‘‘used’’ the barges or was in danger, rejected indirect-benefit theory, and affirmed summary judgment for Nor Goliath.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether towing barges and tug services were "necessaries" furnished to the Nor Goliath under CIMLA | Tug services and barges were necessary to the Nor Goliath’s role in the decommissioning project | The tugs and barges served other vessels; the Nor Goliath did not "use" them, so no lien | Not necessaries for Nor Goliath; no lien |
| Whether barges constitute equipment "used by the vessel" (like drilling equipment) | Barges were essential equipment enabling Nor Goliath to perform its lift-and-load function | Barges were not equipment of Nor Goliath and did not help its crane or operations | Barges were not equipment "used by" Nor Goliath; no lien |
| Whether an indirect or mutual benefit from multi-vessel operations creates a maritime lien | The decommissioning would halt without tugs; Nor Goliath indirectly benefitted, so lien should attach | CIMLA liens run only against the vessel that actually received the necessary; indirect benefit is insufficient | Indirect benefit alone does not create a lien; liens are vessel-specific |
| Whether tugs protected Nor Goliath from danger (creating a necessary) | Tows prevented dangerous suspended lifts in choppy waters, protecting Nor Goliath | No evidence of danger or that Nor Goliath required tugs for safety; assertions are conclusory | Plaintiffs failed to present evidence of danger; no genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Trico Marine Operators, Inc. v. Falcon Drilling Co., 116 F.3d 159 (5th Cir. 1997) (equipment necessary to a vessel’s particular function can be a "necessary")
- Martin Energy Servs., L.L.C. v. Bourbon Petrel M/V, 962 F.3d 827 (5th Cir. 2020) (necessaries must be provided for use by the vessel itself; cargo or equipment for another vessel is not a necessary)
- Equilease Corp. v. M/V Sampson, 793 F.2d 598 (5th Cir. 1986) (necessaries are determined relative to the ship’s requirements and particular function)
- Valero Mktg. & Supply Co. v. M/V Almi Sun, 893 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2018) (CIMLA provisions applied stricti juris to avoid expanding maritime liens by inference)