Court Awards $3,761,500.00 in Salvage Award; Salvage Convention Factors Applied

Currault v. Am. River Transp. Co., LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105875 *; 2024 WL 2991181 (E.D. La., June 14,2024; Vitter. J.).

           This maritime pure salvage claim was filed when barges owned by American River Transportation Company, LLC (ARTCO) broke away during Hurricane Ida damaging property owned by Crescent Ship Service, Inc., its insurers, and Lower River Ship Service, LLC.[1] The property damage claims and salvage claims were consolidated; prior to trial, the property damage claims were settled.[2] The salvage claims went to trial without a jury on April 22-24, 2024.[3]

            As stated by Judge Vitter two straightforward issued were presented: “(1) [W]hether the Salvage Plaintiffs are entitled to a salvage award under general maritime law and, if so, (2) the amount of the salvage award under the Salvage Convention.”[4] The Salvage Convention will control in the event of any conflict between it and U.S. General Maritime Law.[5]

            The court noted that the Convention does not eliminate the requirements of General Maritime Law that the claimants must prove: “’ (1) that the property faced a marine peril; (2) that voluntary service was rendered when not required as an existing duty or from a special contract; and (3) the salvage attempt succeeded in whole or in part, or contributed to the success of the operation.’”[6] The court found that the claimants successfully proved all three elements.

            Judge Vitter analyzed the six factors of General Maritime Law enunciated by the Supreme Court in The Blackwall[7]along with the ten factors of the Convention[8]  and  noted that other courts applying both factors have concluded that the factors of The Blackwall are for all practical purposes adopted by the Convention.[9] Though the Convention considers any mitigation to the environment, the court held and the parties stipulated that if the salvors could not prove this element, they, nonetheless would be entitled to a salvage award.[10]

            The property salvaged was worth $18,807,500.00. The salvors asserted that their efforts saved an additional $817,719.39 in property. However, the judge found they failed to carry their burden to identify the additional property.[11] She held that seven of the ten Salvage Convention factors favor a substantial award while three do not.[12]

            The salvors sought an award in excess of $9million which “would be the largest award in salvage history….”[13] They were awarded $3,761,500.00 amounting to 20% of the value of the salved property.[14] In addition, prejudgment interest at the rate of 5% from date of judicial demand was awarded.[15]

            We thank Adam Davis[16] of the Adam Davis Law Firm who represented the salvage claimants for bringing this to our attention.

[1] Currault, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105875 at *1.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at *18.

[6] Id. at *19. Citing: Sunglory Maritime, Ltd. v. PHI, Inc., 212 F. Supp. 3d 618, 837-38 (E.D. La. 2016)

[7] 77 U.S. 1, 19 L.Ed. 870 (1869).

[8] 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105875 at *27-28.

[9] Id. at *29. Citing: Sunglory, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 653 (quoting DOROTHY J v. City of New York, 749 F. Supp. 2d 50, 70 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) & citing In re Mielke, Civ. A. No. 10-13519, 2013 WL 5913681, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 1, 2013)

[10] Id.; *45-46.

[11] Id. at *30.

[12] Id. at *51.

[13] Id. at *53

[14] Id. at *54.

[15] Id. at *57.

[16] Adam Davis was the Managing/Articles Editor of the Loyola Maritime Law Journal in 2013-2014.