691 F.3d 461
2d Cir.2012Background
- Spain sues ABS and its subsidiaries for environmental and economic harm from the 2002 Prestige oil spill.
- ABS is a classification society that inspects vessels for compliance and issues class and statutory certificates.
- SafeHull, a structure-modeling service by ABS's affiliate, could supplement classification surveys; Prestige owners did not purchase SafeHull.
- Erika and Castor casualties prompted ABS rule-change proposals; some changes were not adopted or implemented before Prestige's final surveys.
- Prestige underwent its final Special Survey in 2001 and a final Annual Survey in 2002; ABS issued the class certificate in May 2001 and May 2002 respectively.
- Spain alleges ABS's decisions and handling of information were recklessly negligent, causing the 2002 wreck, while ABS argues no duty or no recklessness established by evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law governs the merits | Spain argues U.S. maritime law applies to the tort claim. | ABS argues different applicable law; classification context governs. | Lauritzen factors favor U.S. maritime law. |
| Whether ABS owed Spain a tort duty | Spain contends classification societies owe duty to third parties for reckless conduct. | ABS argues no duty to third parties absent preexisting relationship. | Court assumes duty for argument, but finds insufficient evidence of recklessness. |
| Whether Spain produced evidence of recklessness | Spain points to proposed rule changes and SafeHull use as evidence of reckless disregard. | ABS argues lack of obvious risk and lack of causal link to wreck; industry practice relevant. | No reasonable jury could find recklessness on record. |
| Whether specific evidentiary theories show recklessness | Categories: rule-change proposals, two-surveyor rule, SafeHull mandate, gauging handling, Kostazos fax. | Evidence insufficient to show existential risk or conscious disregard. | none of these show recklessness sufficient for triable issue. |
| Imputation of Kostazos fax to ABS decisionmakers | Fax to Marine Services should have reached ABS officials; imputed knowledge creates duty breach. | No agency relationship proven; uncertain scope of duties; fax not shown to reach decisionmakers. | No basis to impute knowledge; no recklessness shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grubart, Jerome B. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995) (admiralty jurisdiction and tort interference standards)
- East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (1986) (admiralty choice-of-law and nexus analysis)
- Romero v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959) (maritime choice-of-law and jurisdictional factors)
- Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571 (1953) (Lauritzen factors for maritime conflict of laws)
- Carbotrade S.p.A. v. Bureau Veritas, 99 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1996) (application of Lauritzen factors; place of act and interests)
- Rationis Enters. Inc. of Pan. v. Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Co., 426 F.3d 580 (2d Cir. 2005) (place of wrongful act and choice-of-law analysis)
- Sundance Cruises Corp. v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 7 F.3d 1077 (2d Cir. 1993) (limitations on third-party liability for classification society)