Moench v. Marquette Transportation Co. Gulf-Inland, L.L.C.
838 F.3d 586
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- A Marquette-owned tug, M/V Salvation, allided with the privately owned fiberglass vessel SES EKWATA while towing barges on the Atchafalaya River during historic high water; the tug's captain left controls and the deckhand was off watch.
- The allision caused severe hull damage (large holes, splits below the waterline); EKWATA could not be dry-docked for full inspection and was later vandalized.
- Moench (owner/trust) sued under general maritime law for negligence and unseaworthiness, seeking pre-casualty value and claiming constructive total loss.
- At bench trial the district court found Marquette liable, valued the vessel’s pre-casualty value at $417,000, concluded repair costs would exceed that value (constructive total loss), and awarded $822,890 less salvageable materials.
- The district court found Marquette abused the judicial process and acted in bad faith during litigation and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs to Moench; Marquette appealed liability treatment of damages, exclusion of an expert opinion, and the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moench) | Defendant's Argument (Marquette) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive total loss — valuation & repair cost | EKWATA was a constructive total loss; pre-casualty value supported by purchase price and improvements; repairs exceed value | District court’s valuation and total-loss finding unsupported by experts Marquette presented; repairs less than value | Affirmed: court’s $417,000 valuation and finding that repair costs exceeded value were within permissible range of evidence and not clearly erroneous |
| Exclusion of expert testimony (Larry Strouse) | Strouse was a non-retained (fact) witness under Rule 26(a)(2)(C) and should be allowed to opine on pre-casualty value even if absent from his report | Court properly excluded a new expert valuation opinion not disclosed in report per discovery rules | Affirmed: even if exclusion erred, any error was harmless because testimony would be cumulative and did not affect substantial rights |
| Attorneys’ fees as sanctions for bad-faith conduct | Fees unwarranted because Marquette had good-faith basis to contest damages and litigate to trial | Marquette litigated liability despite clear facts, presented unreliable experts, abused process; fees necessary | Affirmed: district court’s bad-faith findings not clearly erroneous and sanctioning power properly exercised under inherent authority and precedent |
| Amount of fee award (lodestar & adjustments) | Requested fee award disproportionate; district court should have further reduced award under Johnson factors (degree of success) | District court applied lodestar and considered proportionality objections, reduced some fees; award reasonable | Affirmed: lodestar method applied; court considered Johnson factors sufficiently and did not abuse discretion in amount awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Standard Oil Co. of N.J. v. S. Pac. Co., 268 U.S. 146 (1925) (defines pre-casualty value and valuation approach for total-loss recovery)
- Ryan Walsh Stevedoring Co. v. James Marine Servs., Inc., 792 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1986) (standard of review for constructive total loss findings)
- Gaines Towing & Transp., Inc. v. Atlantia Tanker Corp., 191 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1999) (repair-cost vs. pre-casualty-value test for total loss)
- Greer v. United States, 505 F.2d 90 (5th Cir. 1974) (district court should consider all evidence bearing on value)
- King Fisher Marine Servs., Inc. v. NP Sunbonnet, 724 F.2d 1181 (5th Cir. 1984) (recognizing indicia of value: replacement cost, depreciation, expert opinion, insurance)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (courts’ inherent power to award fees for bad-faith conduct)
- Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240 (1975) (American Rule and circumstances for fee shifting)
- Gate Guard Servs., L.P. v. Perez, 792 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2015) (bad-faith litigation conduct can justify sanctions)
- Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.3d 1041 (5th Cir. 1998) (lodestar method for calculating fee awards)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (requirement for reasonably specific explanation of fee determinations)