United States v. American Commercial Lines, L.L.C., 875 F.3d 170

On July 23, 2008, the ACL-owned tug M/V MEL OLIVER (operated by DRD under charter agreements) was towing ACL barge DM-932 when the barge sank after colliding with an ocean-going tanker, releasing ~300,000 gallons of oil into the Mississippi River.
DRD crewmember (Steersman Bavaret) was in control after the licensed master left; Bavaret was unlicensed to command and had worked excessive hours in violation of Coast Guard rules; he was found non-responsive at the controls after the collision.
DRD and its personnel pled guilty to criminal violations (Ports & Waterways Safety Act and Clean Water Act); DRD admitted manning and licensing deficiencies.
The United States sought recovery under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA); ACL, as the statutorily defined “responsible party,” paid removal costs and was sued to recover ~$20 million the government incurred.
District court granted summary judgment for the United States, denying ACL both the OPA third‑party defense and limitation of liability; ACL appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ACL may invoke OPA’s third‑party defense (33 U.S.C. §2703(a)(3)) because DRD’s conduct solely caused the spill	U.S.: DRD’s wrongful conduct occurred “in connection with” its contractual relationship with ACL, barring the defense	ACL: DRD was a third party whose acts caused the spill and thus ACL can invoke the third‑party defense	Court: Denied ACL’s third‑party defense — DRD’s acts occurred “in connection with” the charter relationship (would not have occurred but for the contract)
Whether ACL is entitled to OPA’s general limitation on liability (33 U.S.C. §2704) despite DRD’s violations and criminal conduct	U.S.: DRD’s gross negligence / regulatory and criminal violations were committed by a person acting “pursuant to” the contractual relationship, lifting the liability cap	ACL: The conduct was outside the scope of the contract and thus not “pursuant to” the contractual relationship; criminality shouldn’t automatically trigger §2704(c)(1)	Court: Denied ACL’s limit on liability — DRD’s violations occurred in carrying out contractual duties (i.e., “pursuant to” the relationship), so §2704(c)(1) applies to lift the limit

Robinson v. Orient Marine Co., 505 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment standard and review)
Buffalo Marine Servs. Inc. v. United States, 663 F.3d 750 (5th Cir. 2011) (OPA creates a strict‑liability cleanup scheme)
Rice v. Harken Exploration Co., 250 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2001) (OPA’s purpose and remedial scheme)
Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560 (U.S. 2012) (use ordinary meaning when a statute is undefined)
Westwood Pharm., Inc. v. Nat’l Fuel Gas Distrib. Corp., 964 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1992) (interpretation of similar “in connection with” language under CERCLA)
United States v. LeBeouf Bros. Towing Co., 621 F.2d 787 (5th Cir. 1980) (context on maritime liability principles)