882 F.3d 566
5th Cir.2018Background
- Three tugs (MISS DOROTHY, ANGELA RAE, FREEDOM) were escorting barge FSB 101; MISS DOROTHY (an assisting tug) allided with a bridge fender system and sank.
- Continental (insurer of MISS DOROTHY) sued L&L (owner of ANGELA RAE) alleging ANGELA RAE was the lead tug and negligent.
- Two insurers dispute coverage: Atlantic Specialty (hull & machinery on ANGELA RAE) covers damage only to the ANGELA RAE’s “tow”; P&I (protection & indemnity) covers other vessel losses unless covered by a hull policy.
- P&I argued MISS DOROTHY was the ANGELA RAE’s “tow” because ANGELA RAE was the dominant-mind lead tug, so Atlantic Specialty’s policy must cover the loss.
- District court agreed with P&I; Fifth Circuit assumed the complaint’s factual allegations and reviewed whether “tow” in the Atlantic Specialty policy includes an assisting tug under the dominant-mind doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does “tow” in the hull policy encompass an assisting tug (MISS DOROTHY)? | P&I: Yes — the lead tug (ANGELA RAE) was the dominant mind, so vessels for whose safe navigation it was responsible are its “tow.” | Atlantic Specialty: No — “tow” means a vessel provided auxiliary motive power (pushed/pulled); MISS DOROTHY received no motive power. | Held for Atlantic Specialty: “Tow” means a vessel being provided auxiliary motive power; MISS DOROTHY was not a tow. |
| Should the tort-based dominant-mind doctrine define contractual term “tow”? | P&I: Yes — dominant-mind allocation of navigation responsibility should determine who is a tow for insurance coverage. | Atlantic Specialty: No — contract terms should be given their plain, ordinary meaning; importing tort duties is inappropriate. | Held: Court declines to import dominant-mind tort doctrine into insurance contract meaning. |
| Is the ordinary/dictionary meaning of “tow” controlling under Louisiana contract law? | P&I: Argues for a duty-based definition (practical clarity). | Atlantic Specialty: Argues for plain-meaning/dictionary definition (motive power). | Held: Plain, ordinary meaning controls; dictionaries, treatises, and precedent define tow as a vessel being pulled or pushed. |
| Did Atlantic Specialty have coverage obligation under its policy? | P&I: Contends policy covers because ANGELA RAE caused her “tow” to collide. | Atlantic Specialty: Contends policy does not apply because ANGELA RAE did not tow MISS DOROTHY. | Held: No coverage; summary judgment reversed and rendered for Atlantic Specialty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stevens v. The White City, 285 U.S. 195 (1932) (describes towage as supplying power by one vessel to draw another)
- Sacramento Navigation Co. v. Salz, 273 U.S. 326 (1927) (defines towage service as employment of one vessel to expedite another)
- Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. Indian Towing Co., 232 F.2d 750 (5th Cir. 1956) (towage as employment of one vessel to expedite voyage of another)
- Chitty v. M/V Valley Voyager, 408 F.2d 1354 (5th Cir. 1969) (discusses helper tug liability and duties when flotilla navigation is at issue)
- Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. M/V Bill Andrews, 624 F.2d 643 (5th Cir. 1980) (treats duties and potential liability where a tug effectively becomes a tow)
- Plains Pipeline, L.P. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 54 F. Supp. 3d 586 (E.D. La. 2014) (example where tow acted as dominant mind over tugs)