United States v. American Commercial Lines, L.L.C
759 F.3d 420
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- An ACL-owned tug and barge collided in the Mississippi River, spilling oil; ACL was designated the OPA "responsible party."
- ACL contracted with spill responders ES & H and USES to perform cleanup; disputes arose over portions of invoiced amounts.
- ES & H and USES filed claims with the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund after ACL failed to pay disputed amounts within OPA’s 90-day period; the NPFC paid reduced sums to each.
- The United States, by subrogation, sued ACL to recoup Fund payments; ACL sought to join ES & H and USES as third‑party defendants or assert direct claims/indemnity against them.
- The district court permitted joinder but dismissed ACL’s claims against ES & H and USES as displaced by OPA; ACL appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OPA displaces federal common law/general maritime claims by a responsible party against a spill responder who elected Fund payment | ACL: OPA does not explicitly displace these common-law/maritime claims, so ACL may sue/seek indemnity from responders | U.S./responders: OPA’s comprehensive remedial scheme displaces such claims; Fund/subrogation and APA review are the exclusive paths | Held: OPA displaces ACL’s claims; exclusive remedy is OPA procedures and Fund recoupment with APA defenses |
| Whether ACL could join ES & H and USES as third‑party defendants under Rule 14 to litigate disputed charges | ACL: Joinder permitted to allocate liability and challenge responders’ documentation/rates | U.S./responders: Joinder improperly circumvents OPA’s statutory scheme | Held: Joinder procedurally allowed but substantive third‑party claims dismissed as displaced by OPA |
| Whether OPA’s savings clause preserves maritime/common-law remedies against responders | ACL: §2751(e) preserves admiralty and maritime remedies, so claims survive | U.S./responders: Savings clause is subject to "except as otherwise provided" and cannot override OPA’s procedures here | Held: Savings clause does not save ACL’s claims because OPA expressly provides the alternative Fund procedure |
| Whether ACL may pursue indemnity or other remedies against responders after Fund payment | ACL: Implied indemnity or agreement-based indemnity should remain available | U.S./responders: Subrogation transfers responders’ rights to the U.S.; no actionable loss to ACL yet | Held: No indemnity remedy against responders now; Fund/subrogation leaves the United States as proper party and ACL may defend against recoupment via APA review (e.g., arbitrary and capricious) |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) (discusses federal statutory schemes and limits on alternative common-law recovery)
- In re: Deepwater Horizon, 745 F.3d 157 (5th Cir.) (OPA forms a comprehensive remedial scheme; savings clause read narrowly)
- M/V BIG SAM, 681 F.2d 432 (5th Cir. 1982) (statutory remedies can be exclusive where Congress created a calibrated scheme)
- Buffalo Marine Servs., Inc. v. United States, 663 F.3d 750 (5th Cir.) (APA review is the vehicle for challenging Fund payments as arbitrary and capricious)
- City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (1981) (discusses displacement vs. preemption principles)
- Luera v. M/V Alberta, 635 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 2011) (procedural permissibility of third‑party joinder under Rule 14)