Rogers Terminal and Shipping Corporation v. International Grain Transfer, Inc. v. The M/v John 3:36, Philip Alan Froude, on Behalf of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London

672 F.2d 464, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20409
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 5, 1982
Docket81-3238
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 672 F.2d 464 (Rogers Terminal and Shipping Corporation v. International Grain Transfer, Inc. v. The M/v John 3:36, Philip Alan Froude, on Behalf of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rogers Terminal and Shipping Corporation v. International Grain Transfer, Inc. v. The M/v John 3:36, Philip Alan Froude, on Behalf of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 672 F.2d 464, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20409 (5th Cir. 1982).

Opinion

672 F.2d 464

ROGERS TERMINAL AND SHIPPING CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL GRAIN TRANSFER, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
The M/V JOHN 3:36, et al., Defendants,
Philip Alan Froude, on behalf of Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's of London, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 81-3238.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

April 5, 1982.

Patrick L. Burke, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant.

Terrence C. Forstall, John S. Hunter, New Orleans, La., Cordell H. Haymon, Baton Rouge, La., for Intern. Grain Transfer, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before GOLDBERG, WILLIAMS and GARWOOD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Upon consideration of the briefs, the record, and the oral argument of counsel for the respective parties, we affirm on the basis of the appended opinion of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

APPENDIX

PATRICK E. CARR, District Judge:

Plaintiffs, Rogers Terminal and Shipping Corporation and International Grain Transfer, Inc., brought this suit to recover damages sustained when the M/S MITSUI MARU collided with the COMMIT II, while being towed by the M/V JOHN 3:36 downbound in the Mississippi River.

Named as defendants were the M/V JOHN 3:36 and the M/S MITSUI MARU in rem, and their respective owners and/or operators and/or charterers, in personam.

Rogers Terminal and Shipping Corporation was the bareboat charterer, thus owner pro hac vice, of the COMMIT II at the time of the collision. The COMMIT II, which is a floating grain elevator, is owned by International Grain Transfer, Inc.

Plaintiffs, in a first amended complaint, added as defendants Taisho Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Great Atlantic Insurance Company and Underwriters at Lloyd's. Taisho was the insurer of the M/S MITSUI MARU and its owners, Great Atlantic and Lloyd's were the primary and excess insurers of the M/V JOHN 3:36 and its owners, respectively.

Plaintiff, Rogers Terminal and Shipping Corporation, settled its claim against all defendants prior to trial in this matter.

The parties stipulated that the M/V JOHN 3:36, through its owner and operator, was one hundred (100%) percent at fault in causing the collision and the damage to the COMMIT II resulting therefrom. The MITSUI MARU and its interests were dismissed from the lawsuit. Counsel for Lloyd's has assumed the defense of the M/V JOHN 3:36 and its owners as excess insurer of the vessel.

The only issue before the Court at trial in this matter was the amount of damages to which plaintiff, International Grain Transfer, Inc., is entitled for the loss of the use of the vessel, profits and income for the two hundred seven-day repair period in which the vessel was inoperable. The parties have stipulated that this period of time was fair and reasonable in order to effect the necessary repairs.

International Grain Transfer, Inc. was incorporated in 1976. The only asset of the business is the COMMIT II, a structure which was converted from a tank barge to a floating grain elevator. Plaintiff purchased the barge for the sole purpose of such conversion sometime prior to October, 1978.

On September 27, 1978, Rogers Terminal and Shipping Corporation, a national stevedoring firm, entered into a bareboat charter contract with International Grain Transfer, Inc. for the use of the COMMIT II. This agreement went into effect October 5, 1978. The bareboat charter provided that International Grain would receive one dollar and fifty cents per metric ton of grain product handled by the COMMIT II. Though not provided by the contract, Rogers also paid International Grain thirty-five (35%) percent of the amount charged for discharge jobs completed by the COMMIT II, for which Rogers is paid per hour, as opposed to per unit.

The contract could be cancelled by either party upon ninety (90) days notice or immediately by International Grain in the event of non-use by Rogers during any calendar month.

In October, 1978, when the COMMIT II was taken to New Orleans, it was not completely prepared for operation. Testing and various adjustments to iron out the kinks ensued until February, 1979, when the elevator was considered to be fully operational.

On March 18, 1979, the collision in question occurred. The COMMIT II remained out of operation for repairs for a period of two hundred seven (207) days, from March 18, 1979 to October 10, 1979.

Defendant argues that since the COMMIT II was under bareboat charter to Rogers, as owner pro hac vice of the vessel, Rogers was the only party who had a cause of action for loss of profits. Defendant claims that the only right International Grain had was that as owner in title only, specifically the right of reversion upon termination of the charter.

The Court finds that the plaintiff, as owner of the COMMIT II, is entitled to recover from the defendant for damages incurred as a result of the collision. The fact that the vessel was bareboat chartered at the time of the collision is not such to establish that plaintiff relinquished all proprietary interest and consequently could not recover.

The cases cited by defendant, Robins Dry Dock and Repair Company v. Flint, et al., 275 U.S. 303, 48 S.Ct. 134, 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927) and Cargill, Inc. v. Offshore Logistics, Inc., 615 F.2d 212 (5th Cir., 1980), clearly do not stand for the proposition that the actual owner of a vessel does not have a right to recover damages sustained when the tortious conduct of another party denies the owner the right to derive income from the damaged property; rather, Robins, supra, as well as Cargill, Inc., supra, involved situations where the parties seeking recovery had no proprietary interest in the damaged property. It is well established that the owner of a vessel has the right to recover from a tortfeasor who causes physical damage to the vessel. Gilmore and Black, The Law of Admiralty, 2nd Ed., p. 239. McDonough Marine Service, Inc. v. M/V ROYAL STREET, 465 F.Supp. 928 (E.D.La.,1979). Affirmed, 608 F.2d 203 (5th Cir., 1979).

The Fifth Circuit has held that while loss of profits must be proved with reasonable certainty, the mere fact that such damages may not be susceptible of exact measurement does not make them any less recoverable. Mechanical Wholesale, Inc. v. Universal-Rundle Corp., 432 F.2d 228 (5th Cir., 1970), Natco, Inc. v. Williams Brothers Engineering Co., 489 F.2d 639 (5th Cir., 1974).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re the Complaint of Ensco Offshore Co.
990 F. Supp. 2d 751 (S.D. Texas, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
672 F.2d 464, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-terminal-and-shipping-corporation-v-international-grain-transfer-ca5-1982.