*2 HATCHETT, Before HILL and Circuit *, Judge. Judges, and District ALLGOOD ALLGOOD, Judge: District Company United States Fire Fire) (U.S. action for declara- brought this tory judgment Cathy Ca- against Gene and vanaugh, judgment it was seeking a damage for suffered not liable trawler, Cavanaughs’ shrimp the “Serious Cavanaughs counter- Business.” The dis- loss. claimed recover Cava- judgment court entered for the trict appealed. naughs and Fire U.S. Cathy Cavanaugh were Gene Business” at owners the “Serious aground it ran on June time burned Cavanaughs purchased had Lennis, father, in Au- trawler Gene’s time Lennis Cava- gust, During times, naugh and at all owned the trawler Cavanaugh voyage, until its final Gene May Cava- captain. Gene recovering pox from chicken naugh was agreement with a charter and entered into * Allgood, sitting by designation. U.S. District Honorable Clarence W. Alabama, Judge from District of the Northern October, “Serious take the Ballard to C. Fire instituted this William oper- action for a shrimping. declaratory judgment Ballard was Business” Augustine, contract. The St. coun- trawler between ate the terclaimed, contending Texas, Brownsville, and was loss was due to Florida, and the barratry of Ballard thus a covered limit navigational mile of a 150 informed *3 loss. The court district found that the which policy in the insurance warranted hiring of fishing expedi- Ballard for the one Cava- Business.” the “Serious tion did not constitute a change manage- primarily Ballard naugh apparently hired ment violation the him on a did take reputation, on his but and that Cavanaugh had due exercised dili- the trawler’s to prior cruise “shakedown” gence to properly man the vessel. The to Ballard was May departure on court went on to find that there was no any problems Cavanaugh if he contact authorized, evidence that the port. the put in at When he or when to, agreed any way were in involved in Island, Florida, May on trawler left Stock Ballard’s operate decision to the trawler experi- Cavanaugh’s and two of Ballard beyond the 150 mile limit and concluded only people the members were enced crew that that act amounted to barratry and was on board. proximate cause of the loss. Final 14, 1981, the Coast Guard noti- On June judgment was entered in favor of the de- Cavanaughs that fied the the “Serious fendant, including prejudgment interest at aground was burning Business” and per year the rate of from date 12% Bajo Reef Neuvo about 150 miles south- the loss. day, peo- eight west of Jamaica. The next appeal, On U.S. Fire contends that the rescued ple were water near district court in finding erred: remains of the trawler. Ballard has not policy was in loss; force at the time of again. been nor heard from seen determining proxi- was the Business” was The “Serious insured cause of mate the loss of the “Serious purchased at the time it was U.S. Fire Business”; awarding and in prejudgment Cavanaugh that policy re- Lennis was interest. Cathy Cavanaugh. by Gene and newed dispute There is no the “Serious provided coverage The for the “bar- beyond Business” was mile limit ratry the masters and all mariners and aground when she ran and burned. U.S. perils____” However, like the trawl- points Fire to several cases which state being er was covered when it was that insurance suspended when operated Cape Hatteras, between North goes beyond a vessel the navigational lim- Brownsville, Carolina, Texas, and no during its and that a loss that time is not further than 150 Bajo miles offshore. The covered. v. Robinson Home Insurance approximately Neuvo Reef is 400 miles be- Co., (5th Cir.1931); Canton In- yond the covered area. Independent Transp. Office Fire was advised of the but Co., (9th Cir.1914); 217 F. 213 R & WBoat denied because the loss occurred Rentals, Pennsylvania Inc. v. navigational outside the limits of the (1st 257 So.2d La.App.1972). of alleged misrepresentations because distinguishable These from the by Cavanaugh.1 company present cancelled point: case on one crucial in all of and attempted pre- to return the the cited cases the various warranties were paid premium. by voluntary breached act of the insured. 1. U.S. Cavanaugh Fire contends They that Gene was to do. failed also contend that process negotiating agree- the charter diligence to properly failed exercise due man ment with Ballard at the time he renewed nothing since the vessel he knew Ballard about insurance, represented cap- that he was the verify ability operate did his agreed notify tain and insurer in open vessel in waters. change management, event aof which he disobeyance here. case Had the Cava- deliberate willful Such beyond naughs taken trawler 150 master or mariners of an owner’s oral or if it another limit or had been taken mile written instructions. knowledge owner’s or consent

with proximate the loss accidentally, if then there would have even ground Business” “Serious and there burning Bajo Neuvo Reef. coverage. been no insurance would have admiralty truly cases the “cause which is Business”, however, was tak- “Serious is that which beyond the warranted en some 400 miles efficiency.” Steamship Lanasa Fruit act of third limits the unauthorized Indemnity Co. Universal Insurance written and party in of both ver- violation 556, 563, 371, 374, agreements, an act bal by grounding Loss L.Ed. insured. What would Cavanaughs were *4 specifically fire under in was covered the warranty is a of not a have been breach policy. barratry, grounding Since the mile in this case where limit breach perils and fire were act all covered the the barratrous acts due to of was exceeded barratry operate of cannot to the Ballard. coverage, the void decision of finding the actions of Bal the Fire is district court that U.S. liable barratry, adopts this court lard constituted the policy under the loss must be af barratry of district court’s definition the To otherwise find firmed. hold to guidelines set forth which follows operate peril one covered could to re (1) Barratry can be defined our circuit. any lieve the insurer of loss which occurred by the or mari an act committed master peril.2 from another On the covered issues ship involving a ners of a deliberate misrepresentation by of the owners and disobeyance instruc of owner’s willful diligence properly failure to due to exercise tions, (2) act the master or an committed vessel, clearly sup man the the evidence unlawful, ship a for some dis mariners of ports findings. The the trial court’s award honest, contrary purpose, fraudulent or rule prejudgment of interest in admi owners, whereby duty their lat ralty exception eases rather than the (3) every injury, an or ter sustained viola part this error of the court finds no duty by master or tion of mariners ordering. district court in so culpable negligence arising gross and AFFIRMED. duty to contrary to their the owner. See Indemnity Co., v. Travelers Darien Bank HILL, Judge, (5th Cir.1981); JAMES C. Circuit dissent- Fishing ing:

Fleet, Inc. v. Trident Insurance majority because the has mis- dissent barratry of in this this circuit has held that barra- construed role Because predi- gross culpable negligence majority’s drama. The can be try covers result mariners, only upon cap- that the by the or it is clear that cated a master conclusion barratry insurance cov- barratry also include tain’s extended the the definition must against judge reasoning peril similar was or was not a ... 2. The district followed Republic to that the court in China v. the loss is exclud used where the cause of ultimate National Union Fire or an exclu ed from aff'd, (D.Md.1957), Cir. clause, recovery may not be had on the sion 1958), barratry. grounds of (1958): L.Ed.2d 64 Id. at 231. barratry one of the causes of the [W]here Although case in this fact situation (such stranding the ultimate cause here, if finding princi lend itself to similar coverage by capture) or is not excluded from ple granting is con where clause, recovery a may exclusion (here, of the loss nected to the ultimate cause barratry, be had on fire) is the same. of the loss the ultimate cause whether (“F.C. S.”) it, of the the result barra- erage. subjudi- As Clause. The case coverage. It try the owner’s was ce involves detention or seizure owner, grievous loss to but not was a specific vessel such that a exclusion from against which the the losses one of coverage applies. The vessel out- coverage. provided side the territorial limits of coverage against the loss of provide did not the barratry master, a result of it insured coverage; loss of its own a covered which is loss under “Per- matters, In maritime the in- the vessel. Moreover, of the policy. ils” clause recover if sured following language Court notes policy proximately causes the from the Blaine & Richards case: Co. the vessel. In this the vessel time, single At the same lost as a result of Bal- was not nearest the loss in time should barratry;1 grounding proximately lard’s necessarily proxi- be found to be the the loss of the vessel. caused mate cause. In- [Citation omitted.] does not cover specifically losses stead, in accord with the reasonable (or occurring perils) more groundings understandings expectations offshore; therefore, 150 miles than parties, we attempt must to ascertain judgment of the should district court Supreme what the Court has referred reversed. “predominant to as the and determin- that Ballard’s ing” or the “real efficient” cause *5 vessel, of the court district the loss Determi- [Citations omitted.] following findings made the of fact and of nation cause in these conclusions of law: cases is thus a matter of com- applying Captain barratry was the Ballard’s judgment mon sense reasonable proximate cause of the the vessel. alleged. source to the of the losses Bank, supra, Darien 654 F.2d at See 1054-55. 1019-22; Fleet, Inc., Fishing supra, 598 Thus, judge the district bar- concluded that at 927-28. His F.2d deliberate will- reef, ratry, running aground directly misconduct ful caused the legally opinion the loss. The fire grounding, and destruction of the that, majority apparently concludes al- The eases the Plain- vessel. cited though grounding caused the the bar- contrary tiff/Counterdefendant for a ratry coverage beyond extended the cases, proposition inapposite. Those Both warranted limit. the district court Richards & Co. v. Marine In- Blaine are, majority believe, and the I in error. demnity Company Insurance Ameri- of analyze Cir.1980) Before cases cited ca, (2d F.2d 1051 and Nau- 635 judge parties, district it will be Charter, Edinburgh Inc. v. tilus helpful precisely to (D.Md. determine and Co., define F.Supp. 510 1092 Insurance 1981), presented.2 the issue covers opinion, published without aff'd specified (4th Cir.1981), perils including barratry and F.2d involved 673 1314 not, however, vessels, grounding. The detention or of where the seizure provide specified perils for the if policy specifically insurance excluded (150 warranty off- such the territorial miles detention or seizure shore) Despite majority’s under the and Seizure Capture Free from breached.3 discovered, accept problem majority’s of Bal- than view more characterization Co., purposes Georgia lard's actions as dissent; however, of this half solved.” Ellison Railroad 87 for 706-07, 691, my 13 S.E. resolution Ga. 809 because of case, I see no issue and pass need to on that express provides, opinion propriety pertinent part, "war- therefore 3. The to the majority’s navigation ranted confined to U.S. coastal conclusion. Hatteras, tributary Cape waters inland Brownsville, inclusive, Texas, Bleckley Georgia Chief Justice As Su- N.C. to both noted, preme right point Court "when to exceed 150 miles therefrom.” offshore

837 opinion, grounding possible cannot be covered when the direct cause clearly poli- it because occurred outside the of the loss was excluded by warranty. The insured precludes recovery cy’s ed” ance 368, dent in this circuit a burn Boat Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Insur- 150-mile limit. Under the clear 99 L.Ed. 337 even Co., contained a otherwise caused grounds, though be party used the vessel was Wilburn, (1954). breached this even (5th Cir.1953), U.S. though pleasure that the vessel 310, loss. Wil- warranty; destroyed a “cover- prece- craft. rev’d A.C. 393. F.2d 1314 (1982); See, e.g., Republic 3 L.Ed.2d 64 211 Cir.), Charters v. Union Fire Insurance (D.Md.1957), 945, cert. John denied, (4th Cir.1981), Edinburgh (D.Md.1981), (1958); aff'd, 358 & Sons v. U.S. China v. National 254 F.2d 177 Nautilus Virgin Co., aff'd 823, Burr, L.Ed.2d 468 151 79 S.Ct. mem., 38, (a peril), fire the court held that causa rest on the doctrine These cases warranty precluded recovery. the breach of spectatur,5 non remota próxima Id. 836. This follows the often- admiralty in proximate cause governs stated rule that warranties contracts proxi cases; dealing with literally marine must negligence context are mate cause id.; see also strictly enforced. Ar- Blaine Rich part the most irrelevant. Law of Marine nould’s Insurance and Aver- Indemnity v. Marine Insur & Co. ards ed.1981).4 age 1Í1Í (2d ance Both the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Wil- the Blaine noted, court As district burn and this case involve a loss “single stated that Richards court fire). Wil- peril (grounding a covered time should nearest to the loss burn, court held the breach of necessarily found to be the pleasure-craft precluded recov- *6 Steamship Fruit cause,” citing Lanasa apply ery; logic should in this the same Insurance Indemnity Co. Universal preclude case to 371, 374, Co., 556, 563, 58 S.Ct. 82 302 U.S. warranty grounding clause because the Lanasa (1937). As both L.Ed. 422 vessel remain within 150 that Richards court stat court and the Blaine course, shore. Of the “cause” miles of the any however, re ed, point is not that this case of the breach sufficient, is but mote cause (bar- arguably a insured peril proximate is that truly is which “cause Nevertheless, ratry). the ultimate cause of Lanasa, efficiency." proximate is which warranty; was excluded loss 563, 374; Blaine at U.S. at 302 although hold that and numerous cases 1054; Richards, also Stan see 635 cause, barratry might the remote be Court, Supreme Cir- has been limited somewhat Court’s reversal Fifth 731, Co., Wil- decision in Wilburn does render 365 U.S. 81 cuit’s Kossick United Fruit S.Ct. present 886, applied as case. See (1961); burn invalid this 6 L.Ed.2d 56 310, 368, 75 L.Ed. 337 348 U.S. S.Ct. 99 party has neither indicated that Florida law Wilburn, that a Texas the insured contended change gener would somehow the result under general maritime law on invalidated the statute may assume that al maritime law. We thus re- of warranties. The statute enforcement heavily law “Florida would draw on maritime causally quired to be con- a breach of fashioning principles,’’ its own Gulfstream recovery. it bar before would nected to Co., Cargo, 409 F.2d Ltd. v. Reliance Insurance statute to be Circuit held Texas The Fifth 1969), accept Cir. Wilburn bind 974 836-37; however, the inapplicable, 201 F.2d ing. ap- Supreme Court held that the statute would statutory preemptive ply absent federal cause con- 5. The immediate not the remote law, 321, judge-made U.S. at 75 S.Ct. at 374. 348 sidered. (of Court) Supreme Wilburn 838 States, 54, cause, v. United Republic

dard Oil Co. 340 as the court stated in China v. 135, 137, National Union Fire (1950).6 Insurance S.Ct. 95 L.Ed. (D.Md.1957), aff'd, Simply stating the doctrine of causa (4th Cir.), F.2d 177 próxima spectatur non remota not, (1958), 3 L.Ed.2d 64 where however, quickly allow resolution of the presented issue in this ease. There is au-

Lords, nould’s exception ence “explained” nould’s Law of Marine Insurance & Aver- age may be considered. thority, although cient cause doctrine does not apply in cases validity may the treatise barratry, H765 has A.C. see John treatise “well-established,” states, questioned by ed. states questioned, that more remote causes its (Blackburn, L.J.),7 and, 1981). factors, weight, effect, & Sons v. exception generally Although the House of thus render- its exist- the effi- may Burr, Ar- Ar- phasis added); coverage by warranty clause, recovery may not be had on the mate cause ture) is not excluded mate cause of loss was or was be had whether or not the ulti- ery may ultimate cause is one of the against____ at 231 or an exclusion barratry. see also causes of the the loss is excluded (such (citations But Nautilus stranding or an exclusion where the ulti- coverage by a clause, omitted) (em not a recov- if the cap- Edinburgh Charters v. applicability its unclear. Arnould’s F.Supp. 1092, 765.H That somewhat dispute (D.Md.1981) ancient (quoting here, need Republic China), however, not be resolved mem., be- aff'd 6. The Lanosa Court Leyland Shipping Co. v. Norwich Union Fire In- Lords). notion of ment but the That various influences meet was the The chain of causation is links in topic though truly impaired cient sprung up which have the a forces, cribed. proximate meet; as the tends cause. result of which it still remains mate is that which is tinct from one is nearest Causes are What does chain, To treat proximate upon question. causes has to be referred to—it efficiency may cause to which the event can be as- Society, infinitely. Lord figure events, proximate and which was the remote but a net. At each a matter of cause as if it was the cause which próxima the radiation from each thus in time is out of the spoken chain, ‘proximate’ in time Shaw, The ^[1918] causes it, another as beads in a row or precedent and joined inadequate. Causation is not and it At the quoted cause. cause which is but—if this of as if causa as the cause which fact to declare which of is, have been A.C. yet may at the it is for the here mean? To treat not point where these I have aptly explains the handy expression, they were point meantime have following destroyed culminate in a point 369 simultaneous, preserved in the real effi- metaphysical said, truly proxi- influences, efficiency. wholly (House judgment point question. of effect as dis- out of state- it, ex- so. al- 7. Lord Blackburn stated: Lord Bramwell also infra ties that The Justice Brett seemed to to there. the Court rightly) passage the book, and that the to the remote that in a try cited as surance am at though certainly one, there laid down that whilst it is in vol. Mr. Justice Field and Lord Arnould on in the first edition no other A note 5. and that the remote cause general were passage *7 authority part it is. there is an very protest against that this was a present ii., p. consequence. from Arnould law. that the cause of loss was being entitled to thought rightly wrongly I can instances which are authority rule is that in insurance the Insurance, was cited from the last edition of 838 of consequence For of that statement advised to not think that it is. an established exception subject. only say my addressed be indemnified was not a the first edition. He has what Sir for such a rule- own That is all I which I now find was suppose naturally I Joseph that I think there is in the case of barra- of insurance for which the instances in which am part may principle the merely putting I do not think very given Arnould, be hereafter in the text- issue. rule; be looked say upon barratry, you true that (I remote in the law, of in- think look par- it is See I

839 loss, the efficient cause ratry was denied, Cir.1981), cert. 456 (4th U.S. 1314 Cavanaughs may not recover. the (1982).8 468 72 L.Ed.2d 945, 102 S.Ct. John Manufacturers gin 393; mon than cases Ope Shipping, Ltd. v. Allstate Insur- a standard the Republic of or the tain (2d Cir.1982), ance cluded See & clause. cause of the specifically excluded aff'd must express ta stated, 150-mile The instant followed s.) Merchants ship will attempted Charters district court be the equivalent are “the warranty by the part, limit. that, 1523, 75 L.Ed.2d 946 free of 1097. Cases in which & ultimate cause loss coverage by warranty____” efficient China, insurance rev’d in F.Supp. 342 seizure Sons v. because if It is clear such as this one. (S.D.N.Y.1970). under the rule those Dominica Mutual distinguish Blaine Richards capture 635 F.2d at apparently navigated outside the a cause of loss to sus- cases, certainly part, seizure, Burr, that Cavanaughs that a F.Supp. and seizure (S.D.N.Y.1981); — [would foreign power Nautilus Vir- the (1983); contains more com- American grounding 1055; disagreed, Indeed, I have See, e.g., barratry at be] under -, A.C. Flo was just (f.c. ex- that Ballard’s Indemnity Bank, Unit these liance caused court relied Fleet, support a Trident barratry precise issue 1969) government denied seizure when Ballard tal constructive tive because s. loss Co. ship constituted clause; however, F.2d at remained concluding that B in their (en we Shipman, the loss of 1981) Insurance Fishing finding banc), held the held barratry) did (See Co., on Darien Bank to be later 927. The presented here. brief; sailed outside exceeding whole loss” under efficient staunchly 654 quoted barratry here seized Fleet ship, without controlling. Fishing Co., we noted however, evidence the and sound. barratry proximately barratry, F.2d occurred before (in general case but 598 ship, the district not result excerpt cause standard: support this addressing the standard 1015 insurer. Fleet, Inc. v. wrecked F.2d 925 150-niile limit I do not find sufficient v. Travelers In Darien (assuming limit, (5th company Mexican Fishing the “to supra.) Boeing disposi sense) f.c. Id. ship. Cir. Cir. re & dealing with a located one case case, have it beyond In this clear doubt that coverage; limitation on territorial ship’s the efficient cause of the loss was court did not the issue reach grounding Bajo An Nuevo reef. disposed relying case on an f.c. analysis examination the efficient cause Virgin Nautilus Char- s. clause. & employed two of cases cited above ters, n. 4. F.Supp. at 1094 & 1100 deal s. with f.c. & clauses illustrates perceive supports no distinction be- In Nautilus nevertheless this conclusion. Charters, virtue of an f.c. captain tween a loss committed (or thereby expressly exclud- by using smuggle the vessel to s. ed) by a marijuana; during smug- not covered territorial the course of *8 Therefore, warranty. gling voyage, government unless Ballard’s bar- Columbian necessary Cory anything in 8. Lord Bramwell’s statement in is ac- to determine of that sort cases, possible cord: here. It is that where in some barratry barratry consequent there has been a But it is that when is the then said may perils against, you might of causa remota it nevertheless within the upon barratry. my opinion be relied without reference to causa call that a loss próxima. say nothing any Now will to as you do in case. Call it an cannot so this general except express to a doubt to rule like, you ultimate loss if that ultimate loss was Justice Brett said about whether what Lord seizure, a that was warranted perfectly correct. I have a that matter against. it; misgiving do not but I consider it about China, The that Republic vessel. court held F.Supp. seized the at of seizure, barratry, proximately added). Here, not the and (emphasis the insured war- barratry warranted would have the vessel cause the cause of the loss clear efficiently guably, neither facts). 1100; same result see also The not loss in either against. in Nautilus barratry analysis here is identical. Ar- occurred. Cory, was a lost or seized had the on vessel did not loss. 510 remarkably case, It in A.C. 393 this case nor but that nevertheless proximately excluded or Charters similar (reach- at act is Arnould’s 687 noncompliance”) matter what the cause sistible sured did not breach the majority’s attempted on the basis that the insured in this case ranted that the vessel would not be outside the 150-milelimit. This ranty —voids without merit. We are operation coverage upon its breach no (“[e]ven of policy distinction (citing eases).10 of peril expressly the direct and irre- provision the breach. See is no excuse for aby voluntary dealing war-—a this rule here The in- Cavanaughs contend in not The their brief with tort but with a contract. Con- that, law, majority immemorial, and the holds because the tracts from time has expressly grounding, predicated here covers recovery liability on a strict the- liable. This U.S. Fire remains ory. Thus, id. See it does not matter that analysis. proper grounding The occurred arguably it was not the “fault” of coverage the 150-milelimit of outside Cavanaughs that Ballard’s actions breach- The so was not covered. con- warranty. ed the barratry that Ballard’s renders the tend The ship distinction between loss of effect; however, 150-milelimit without this explains underlies and be the correct result. When barra- cannot analysis earlier law efficient warranty, try breached the insurance barratry application its vessel, coverage, not the was lost. See when the loss is either or subject excluded Co.; supra discussion of Wilburn Boat warranty. barratry to a If extended cover- also Robinson v. Home Insurance age in either the result Cir.1934) (breach against perils contemplated insurance coverage), voids company its issuing (1935).9 79 L.Ed. 1246 policy. Anything any voyage would be Cavanaughs could recover had covered. I have little doubt that Lords the ship, caused the loss of but the Bramwell and Blackburn were mindful provided no for the loss of cover- problem they this when stated in the Indeed, age. it seems to me that the lan- they validity case that doubted of a guage quoted (in majority opinion allowing recovery rule for remote causes 2) supports only note conclusion in this all supra cases. notes 3 & stating that “where the ultimate cause of (quoting Bramwell).11 Blackburn & the loss coverage by is excluded from clause, warranty or an exclusion would hold that the district court’s find- barratry.” ings support are without in the record or 9. Robinson majority support court stated: 10. cites no cases to their "barratry place operate A cannot where the stipulates warranty”; the insured vessel is to be located the onstrates, as Arnould’s treatise dem- during period majority’s sup- makes position is without right the ages China, insured to recover for dam- port. Republic See also dependent upon being or loss the vessel place damage the stated when the or loss occurred; damage and if or loss occurs when observes, 11. As Arnould's treatise the broad ef- place the vessel is at a other than the one (which exception exception fect is an policy, right named in the insured has exception, reality) in most cases will sim- policy, though to quite place recover on the ply general result in the rule of efficient cause policy. safe as the one named in the being applied. Arnould’s 7 73 F.2d at 4. *9 view of the law. erroneous induced Champi Helenic v. M/V Noritake Co. (5th Cir.1980); on, China 627 F.2d Andersen Lines, v. A.O. Ltd. Union Cir.1966), de

nied, L.Ed.2d America,

UNITED STATES

Plaintiff-Appellee, HYDER,

Leo Calvin

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 83-3741

Non-Argument Calendar. Appeals, Court of

United States

Eleventh Circuit.

May 17, 1984. Horwitz, Fla., Orlando,

Mark L. de- for fendant-appellant. Purcell,

Stephen Atty., L. Or- Asst. U.S. lando, Fla., plaintiff-appellee. HILL, and HENDER- JOHNSON Before SON, Judges. Circuit