Eastern Division of Northern District Court of Illinois grants Ingram Barge Company’s Motion to Dismiss In Personam Claim

Eastern Division of Northern District Court of Illinois grants Ingram Barge Company’s Motion to Dismiss In Personam Claim

Sec. 408[1] of Wreck Act Does Not Create In Personam Liability of Vessel Owner

By: Corey Lloyd

In re Ingram Barge Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52001, 2015 WL 1880164 (N.D. Ill. 2015)

The Eastern Division of the Northern District Court of Illinois granted the limitation claimant’s Motion to Dismiss brought by pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b(6) the in personam claim filed by the United States against Ingram Barge Company.

On April 18, 2013, Ingram Barge Company’s M/V DALE A. HELLER and seven barges under tow broke up and collided with other vessels and the Marseilles Dam and other structures on the Illinois River. Ingram claimed that the event was caused by an Act of God and/or acts or omissions of others for which they were not responsible and filed for limitation of liability under 46 U.S.C. Sec. 30501-30512.The United States filed a claim in the limitation proceeding under sections 408 and 409 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (the “Wreck Act”), in addition to other claims to recover for the costs to repair the structures. Ingram moved to dismiss the government’s claim to the extent the U.S. was asserting an in personam claim against the owner, which would render the claim exclusively in rem in nature.Ingram argued that because Sec. 408 of Wreck Act specifically provides for in rem liability, the government could not bring an in personam claim. The U.S. did not argue that the statute reads otherwise, but did argue that it had an implied right to bring an in personam claim similar to Sec. 409. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the implied in personam remedy in its Wyandotte Transportation Co. v. United States holding.The parties disagreed over the precedent established by the Seventh Circuit interpreting Wyandotte and its applicability to a Sec. 408 claim. In United States v. Ohio Valley Co., Inc., the Seventh Circuit applied the reasoning of Wyandotte to a Sec. 408 claim. That court held that a Sec. 408 claim was not subject to an in personam action Sec. 408 does not create the affirmative duty of vessel owners as does Sec. 409, and this duty brings the implication of an available in personam remedy, which formed the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in Wyandotte.The government also argued that the Sixth Circuit allowed for in personam claims in Hines, Inc. v. United States. But, the Northern District of Illinois noted that after Hines, the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Jantran found that the Hines court merely assumed in personam relief was available and its opinion contained limited textual analysis of the reliefs available, rendering this part of the opinion unpersuasive.Because Sec. 408 of the Wreck Act explicitly allows only for in rem claims, and because it does not impose any duties upon vessel owners which could imply in personam responsibility, the Eastern Division of the Norther District of Illinois granted Ingram’s motion to dismiss the United States’ assertion of in personam claim.[1] 33 U.S.C. Sec. 408