Valero Mktg. & Supply Co. v. M/V ALMI SUN: What Gives Rise to a Maritime Lien?

Valero Mktg. & Supply Co. v. M/V ALMI SUN: What Gives Rise to a Maritime Lien?

By: Patrick Gabb

Valero Mktg. & Supply Co. v. M/V Almi Sun, No. 14-2712, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172258 (E.D. La., Dec. 28, 2015); Valero Mktg. & Supply Co. v. M/V Almi Sun, No. 14-2712, 2015 U.S. Dist. WL 9459971 (E.D. La., Dec. 28, 2015).In 2014, Valero, a marine fuel supplier, entered into a contract with O.W. Bunker USA, Inc. to supply fuel bunkers to the Vessel, M/V ALMI SUN. On or about October 25, 2014, Valero delivered the 199.98 metric tons of fuel to the Vessel but never received the $124,388.24 owed for its services. On November 13, 2014, O.W. USA and other related entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Shortly after O.W. USA filed for bankruptcy, Valero filed suit and requested the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana to arrest the Vessel. Verna Marine Company, the owner of the Vessel, filed an answer, which led to Valero filing a motion for summary judgment.The Court stated that maritime liens in the United States are governed by the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act (CIMLA) and can only arise through operation of law. Valero argued that it possesses a maritime lien against the Vessel and is entitled to receive compensation for its services.Valero contended that O.W. Malta, via O.W. USA, acted as an agent for the Vessel, which granted Valero a valid maritime lien. However, Valero failed to assert any supporting facts to this claim. Rather, the claimant argued it need not show an agency relationship between O.W. Malta or O.W. USA and the Vessel to establish a maritime lien. Furthermore, Valero contended that the Vessel knew from beginning that Valero would be the supplier; however, no evidence suggested that O.W. Malta hire a particular subcontractor. Therefore, the Court found that Valero failed to present any evidence suggesting O.W. Malta acted as an agent for the Vessel.Additionally, Valero averred that the Vessel’s officer in charge of bunker delivery signed Valero’s Bunker Certificate, which expressly disallowed any waiver of Valero’s maritime lien, and accepted the delivery; therefore, Valero maintained that it is entitled to the maritime lien by virtue of the Authorized Vessel’s ratification. The Court found that the Vessel accepting the fuel provided by Valero was not enough to establish a maritime lien between the parties. The Court also held that maritime liens cannot be established by agreements of parties, but rather, only by the operation of law. Thus, the signature of receipt and accepting of Valero’s fuel cannot create a maritime lien if the law does not do so.In conclusion, Valero’s motion for summary judgment was denied because it failed to provide facts that O.W. Malta or O.W. USA acted as an agent and failed to prove that the Vessel particularly chose Valero as the fuel provider.