377 F. Supp. 3d 230
S.D. Ill.2019Background
- On Jan. 6, 2014, Bouchard's tug and barge anchor ruptured NYPA’s submerged Y-49 Cable, releasing dielectric (petroleum-based) fluid into Long Island Sound. NYPA undertook and funded an environmental response totaling about $9.85 million.
- NYPA sued Bouchard claiming reimbursement for removal costs under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) and New York Oil Spill Laws (NYOSL); Bouchard filed a related Limitation Act proceeding seeking to limit liability to vessel value and pending freight. The parties agreed NYPA could pursue its claims separately without prejudice.
- Bouchard moved to dismiss NYPA’s OPA claims and to require NYPA to pursue NYOSL claims in the Limitation Proceeding; NYPA cross-moved for declaratory relief that OPA applies and that Bouchard is the liable third party.
- The Y-49 Submarine Cables are dielectric-fluid–filled transmission cables; land-based pressurization/storage tanks exist outside the submerged segment and are treated separately in NYPA’s SPCC plan.
- The district court held as a matter of law the submerged cables are not an OPA "facility" because they are not "used for" storing, handling, or transferring oil (their primary purpose is electric transmission), and thus OPA does not apply to NYPA’s claims here.
- Because NYPA’s claims do not fall within OPA, the court held OPA’s savings clause does not displace the Limitation Act to permit NYPA to pursue NYOSL outside the Limitation Proceeding; NYPA must litigate NYOSL in the Limitation Proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the submerged Y-49 cables constitute a "facility" under OPA | The cables (and system) store/transfer dielectric fluid and thus are used for oil storage/transfer so OPA applies | Cables’ primary purpose is electricity transmission; any oil storage is incidental and not a "used for" purpose under OPA | Cables are not an OPA "facility"; OPA does not apply |
| Whether OPA’s savings clause permits NYPA to pursue NYOSL claims outside Limitation Act stay | Savings clause preserves state law liability for discharges and removal activities, so NYPA can proceed outside Limitation Act even if OPA does not apply | Savings clause cannot expand OPA’s scope to cover incidents that are not within OPA; allowing it would upset federal-state balance and effectively repeal Limitation Act protections | Savings clause does not allow NYPA to avoid Limitation Act; NYPA must pursue NYOSL in Limitation Proceeding |
| Whether OPA treats a third party as responsible where original responsible party proves third-party sole causation | (NYPA sought declarations under OPA as to third-party liability) | (Bouchard contested OPA’s applicability) | Not reached because OPA inapplicable; NYPA’s OPA declaratory relief denied |
| Spoliation motion re: cable depth measurement | Bouchard argued NYPA failed to preserve evidence and is comparatively negligent | NYPA opposed | Denied as moot in this action because OPA claims dismissed; addressed in Limitation Proceeding if relevant |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000) (savings clause preserves state laws of similar scope to OPA Title I but does not broadly preempt federal regulatory scheme)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 745 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 2014) (limits on scope of OPA savings provision; courts cannot expand section beyond its text)
- In re Oswego Barge Corp., 439 F. Supp. 312 (N.D.N.Y. 1977) (Limitation Act stay/enjoinment encompasses state claims unless preempted)
- Complaint of MetLife Capital Corp., 132 F.3d 818 (1st Cir. 1997) (discussing OPA's relationship to limitation statutes)
- Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co., 840 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D. Tex. 1994) (describing OPA as directed at oil exploration/transport risks)