Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co. v. United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17928
1st Cir.2017Background
- The US Navy owns the FISHER, a military roll-on/roll-off transport; AMSEA contracted to crew, maintain, and perform routine repairs under a Military Sealift Command contract.
- While in Boston graving dock operated by Boston Ship Repair (BSR), AMSEA crew actions allegedly caused a spill of >11,000 gallons of diesel; BSR cleaned up and Ironshore (BSR’s insurer/subrogee) paid ~ $3M in costs.
- Ironshore sued the United States and AMSEA for (1) OPA cleanup costs/strict liability, (2) declaratory relief (strict liability), and (3) negligence under general admiralty/maritime law.
- The district court dismissed all claims (12(b)(6)), relying on the Military Sealift Command–AMSEA contract (not attached to the complaint) and concluding the FISHER was a public vessel exempt from OPA liability and that the OPA displaced maritime negligence claims.
- First Circuit affirmed dismissal of OPA claims (holding the FISHER a public vessel because AMSEA operated under U.S. operational control), reversed dismissal of negligence claims against the United States (OPA’s savings clause preserves admiralty law for public vessels), but held Suits in Admiralty Act exclusivity bars negligence claims against AMSEA (AMSEA is an agent of the U.S.).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the district court consider the Military Sealift Command–AMSEA contract on 12(b)(6)? | Ironshore: contract not in complaint; consideration converted motion to summary judgment without proper notice. | Defendants: contract authenticity uncontested and central to OPA/public-vessel question. | Court: Allowed consideration—contract central to pleaded OPA claim and authenticity not challenged. |
| Does the FISHER qualify as a "public vessel" exempt from OPA liability? | Ironshore: US owned but AMSEA (private crew) operated the ship, so not a public vessel under OPA. | US/AMSEA: government owned and controlled the vessel; private crewing under US operational control still yields public vessel status. | Court: FISHER is a public vessel—private contractor operated under US operational control; OPA exemption applies. |
| Does the OPA preempt general admiralty/maritime negligence claims arising from an oil spill by a public vessel? | Ironshore: OPA does not apply to public vessels, so admiralty claims should remain available. | US: OPA supplants general admiralty law; district court concluded OPA displaces negligence claims. | Court: OPA does not bar admiralty/negligence claims where OPA does not apply; reversed sua sponte dismissal of negligence claims against the US. |
| Can Ironshore maintain negligence claims against AMSEA after suing the US under the Suits in Admiralty Act? | Ironshore: AMSEA acted on its own behalf and is not an "agent" for exclusivity purposes. | US/AMSEA: Suits in Admiralty Act exclusivity bars actions against agent of US; private contractor operating a public vessel is an agent. | Court: AMSEA is an agent of the US for the Act; exclusivity provision bars claims against AMSEA—claims against AMSEA dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re United States, 367 F.2d 505 (3d Cir. 1966) (government-owned ship crewed by private contractor is a public vessel when used for public purposes)
- Blanco v. United States, 775 F.2d 53 (2d Cir. 1985) (contracted operators of government vessels fall within public-vessel concept under Public Vessels Act)
- South Port Marine, LLC v. Gulf Oil Ltd. P'ship, 234 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2000) (OPA supplanted admiralty law as to punitive damages where OPA applies)
- Favorite v. Marine Pers. & Provisioning, Inc., 955 F.2d 382 (5th Cir. 1992) (contract operator of a public vessel characterized as an agent of the United States for exclusivity purposes)
- Thames Shipyard & Repair Co. v. United States, 350 F.3d 247 (1st Cir. 2003) (exposition of sovereign immunity waiver under admiralty statutes)
- Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1993) (narrow exceptions to forbidding consideration of documents outside the complaint on 12(b)(6) motions)
- Diva's Inc. v. City of Bangor, 411 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2005) (complaint expressly linked to an external document permits consideration on 12(b)(6))