Maritime, +3
Maritime
MAN Ferrostaal v. M/V Akili: Steel Pipe Cargo Damage and Improper Stowage
MAN Ferrostaal v. M/V Akili examines steel pipe cargo damage, improper stowage, dunnage failures, marine survey evidence, and vessel liability.
Loading
Loading
Maritime
10 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Maritime, Admiralty, Marine Engineering, Environmental Science, Oil Spill
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Supreme Court
Court:
In CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd. (No. 18-565), the Supreme Court resolved a charter-party dispute arising from the M/T Athos I oil spill on the Delaware River. As the tanker approached CARCO’s Paulsboro, New Jersey berth in 2004, it allided with an abandoned anchor, puncturing the hull and releasing approximately 264,000 gallons of heavy crude. Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Frescati, the vessel owner, paid initial cleanup costs subject to a $45 million liability cap, while the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund reimbursed an additional $88 million. Frescati and the United States then sued CARCO to recover those sums, alleging breach of the safe-berth clause in the ASBATANKVOY voyage sub-charter. The litigation moved from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania bench trial record to the Third Circuit, which treated the clause as a warranty and recognized Frescati as an implied third-party beneficiary before the dispute reached the Supreme Court.
On March 30, 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit in a 7–2 decision written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The Court held that the plain, unqualified text requiring the vessel to come and go “always safely afloat” created an absolute charterer warranty of safety, not a mere duty of due diligence. The Court rejected the view that tort-based diligence principles could limit contractual liability where the charter party did not include that qualifier. Oral argument took place on November 5, 2019. The decision provides a clear reading of safe-berth language in charter-party disputes and remains tied to maritime contract interpretation, vessel-access risk, and liability allocation after the Athos I oil spill.
As the M/T Athos I approached CARCO’s Paulsboro, New Jersey facility, the tanker allided with an abandoned nine-ton anchor in Anchorage No. 9, a federally designated anchorage in the Delaware River. The impact punctured the hull and released approximately 264,000 gallons of heavy crude. Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Frescati, the vessel owner, initially paid cleanup costs subject to a $45 million cap, while the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund reimbursed about $88 million more. After the spill, side-scan sonar survey work by Frescati’s expert John Fish became part of the evidence concerning underwater obstructions in Anchorage No. 9. The appellate record noted that early targeted sonar passes identified other debris, including a pump casing, while the abandoned anchor was not recognized until later review and investigation.
A 41-day bench trial was held before Judge Fullam in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The trial addressed liability issues arising from the Athos I allision, the safe-berth clause, CARCO’s role in designating the berth, and the condition of the approach to the Paulsboro facility. After trial, the district court found CARCO not liable at this stage. That ruling later became part of the appellate history that led the Third Circuit to remand the matter for further findings and renewed consideration of the safe-berth warranty dispute.
On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed in part and clarified the governing safe-berth analysis. The appellate court did not reweigh the expert testimony, but it recognized the role of survey evidence from Fish and Capone, along with Bowman’s vessel-draft analysis, in the safe-berth record. The court also ruled that Frescati qualified as an implied third-party beneficiary of the safe-berth warranty, allowing the dispute to proceed through renewed proceedings.
On remand, Judge Slomsky issued a detailed opinion and credited the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses in concluding that CARCO breached the safe-berth warranty. The side-scan sonar work by Fish and the hydrographic analysis by Capone helped establish the abandoned-anchor hazard. Bowman’s draft calculations further supported the vessel’s compliance with the charter-party requirements. Captain Bethel’s fact-witness testimony as docking pilot was acknowledged, while Captain Betz’s expert testimony in navigation and seamanship supported Frescati’s position that the vessel’s navigation was proper. The court’s findings placed the liability focus on CARCO’s safe-berth obligations.
The Third Circuit issued its precedential decision on March 29, 2018. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment for Frescati on the breach-of-contract claim, holding that CARCO’s safe-berth obligation functioned as an express warranty of safety. It also affirmed Frescati’s prejudgment-interest award and rejected CARCO’s limitation-of-liability defense. However, the court vacated Frescati’s negligence judgment and affirmed the United States’ judgment only in part, remanding for recalculation of damages and prejudgment interest tied to equitable recoupment.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether the safe-berth clause created an absolute warranty or only a duty of due diligence. By this stage, the dispute centered on charter-party text, maritime contract precedent, and how liability should be allocated when a nominated berth proves unsafe. The trial record still supplied the factual background, including expert testimony on vessel draft, hydrographic surveys, underwater obstructions, and navigation practices.
In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court affirmed that the safe-berth clause created an absolute warranty of safety. The Court’s ruling turned on the plain language of the charter-party clause rather than a due-diligence standard. The lower-court record, including expert evidence on vessel draft, hydrographic survey work, underwater obstructions, and navigation practices, remained part of the factual background behind the Athos I safe-berth dispute.
Supreme Court of the United States
Case Name:
CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd.
Admiralty Law
Marine Survey
Navigation
Sonar
Vessel Operations
Ship Handling
Port Operations
Crude oil
Environmental Contamination
Environmental Remediation
In CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd. (No. 18-565), the Supreme Court resolved a charter-party dispute arising from the M/T Athos I oil spill on the Delaware River. As the tanker approached CARCO’s Paulsboro, New Jersey berth in 2004, it allided with an abandoned anchor, puncturing the hull and releasing approximately 264,000 gallons of heavy crude. Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Frescati, the vessel owner, paid initial cleanup costs subject to a $45 million liability cap, while the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund reimbursed an additional $88 million. Frescati and the United States then sued CARCO to recover those sums, alleging breach of the safe-berth clause in the ASBATANKVOY voyage sub-charter. The litigation moved from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania bench trial record to the Third Circuit, which treated the clause as a warranty and recognized Frescati as an implied third-party beneficiary before the dispute reached the Supreme Court.
On March 30, 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit in a 7–2 decision written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The Court held that the plain, unqualified text requiring the vessel to come and go “always safely afloat” created an absolute charterer warranty of safety, not a mere duty of due diligence. The Court rejected the view that tort-based diligence principles could limit contractual liability where the charter party did not include that qualifier. Oral argument took place on November 5, 2019. The decision provides a clear reading of safe-berth language in charter-party disputes and remains tied to maritime contract interpretation, vessel-access risk, and liability allocation after the Athos I oil spill.
As the M/T Athos I approached CARCO’s Paulsboro, New Jersey facility, the tanker allided with an abandoned nine-ton anchor in Anchorage No. 9, a federally designated anchorage in the Delaware River. The impact punctured the hull and released approximately 264,000 gallons of heavy crude. Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Frescati, the vessel owner, initially paid cleanup costs subject to a $45 million cap, while the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund reimbursed about $88 million more. After the spill, side-scan sonar survey work by Frescati’s expert John Fish became part of the evidence concerning underwater obstructions in Anchorage No. 9. The appellate record noted that early targeted sonar passes identified other debris, including a pump casing, while the abandoned anchor was not recognized until later review and investigation.
A 41-day bench trial was held before Judge Fullam in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The trial addressed liability issues arising from the Athos I allision, the safe-berth clause, CARCO’s role in designating the berth, and the condition of the approach to the Paulsboro facility. After trial, the district court found CARCO not liable at this stage. That ruling later became part of the appellate history that led the Third Circuit to remand the matter for further findings and renewed consideration of the safe-berth warranty dispute.
On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed in part and clarified the governing safe-berth analysis. The appellate court did not reweigh the expert testimony, but it recognized the role of survey evidence from Fish and Capone, along with Bowman’s vessel-draft analysis, in the safe-berth record. The court also ruled that Frescati qualified as an implied third-party beneficiary of the safe-berth warranty, allowing the dispute to proceed through renewed proceedings.
On remand, Judge Slomsky issued a detailed opinion and credited the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses in concluding that CARCO breached the safe-berth warranty. The side-scan sonar work by Fish and the hydrographic analysis by Capone helped establish the abandoned-anchor hazard. Bowman’s draft calculations further supported the vessel’s compliance with the charter-party requirements. Captain Bethel’s fact-witness testimony as docking pilot was acknowledged, while Captain Betz’s expert testimony in navigation and seamanship supported Frescati’s position that the vessel’s navigation was proper. The court’s findings placed the liability focus on CARCO’s safe-berth obligations.
The Third Circuit issued its precedential decision on March 29, 2018. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment for Frescati on the breach-of-contract claim, holding that CARCO’s safe-berth obligation functioned as an express warranty of safety. It also affirmed Frescati’s prejudgment-interest award and rejected CARCO’s limitation-of-liability defense. However, the court vacated Frescati’s negligence judgment and affirmed the United States’ judgment only in part, remanding for recalculation of damages and prejudgment interest tied to equitable recoupment.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether the safe-berth clause created an absolute warranty or only a duty of due diligence. By this stage, the dispute centered on charter-party text, maritime contract precedent, and how liability should be allocated when a nominated berth proves unsafe. The trial record still supplied the factual background, including expert testimony on vessel draft, hydrographic surveys, underwater obstructions, and navigation practices.
In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court affirmed that the safe-berth clause created an absolute warranty of safety. The Court’s ruling turned on the plain language of the charter-party clause rather than a due-diligence standard. The lower-court record, including expert evidence on vessel draft, hydrographic survey work, underwater obstructions, and navigation practices, remained part of the factual background behind the Athos I safe-berth dispute.
Marine Engineering Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Anthony Bowman used a software model called Seamaster to calculate the Athos I’s draft at the time of the allision. His model incorporated vessel dimensions, ballast status, loading conditions, ship records, and related vessel data. The District Court credited his testimony in finding that the vessel’s draft was 36′7″, within the contractually warranted maximum of 37′.
Hydrographic/Side-Scan Sonar Survey Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Vincent Capone provided expert testimony on hydrographic surveys of the Delaware River, side-scan sonar survey costs, and tide conditions at the time of the allision. His testimony helped address whether underwater survey work could have identified hazards in the approach to CARCO’s berth, including the abandoned anchor in Anchorage No. 9.
Side-Scan Sonar / Underwater Survey Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
John Fish was identified in the appellate record as Frescati’s expert. His side-scan sonar work formed part of the plaintiff-side evidence concerning underwater obstructions near the Athos I allision site, including survey evidence related to the later-recognized abandoned anchor.
Navigation and Seamanship Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Captain Betz, retained by Frescati, was a qualified harbor pilot and master mariner with decades of experience. He testified as an expert in navigation, seamanship, and safety, evaluating the fact-witness testimony of Captains Teal and Bethel. Betz concluded that the master pilot exchanges were adequate and customary in all respects, and that the Athos I was operated without negligent seamanship. His expert opinion reinforced the plaintiffs’ position that the incident stemmed from an unsafe berth rather than navigational error.
Maritime Expert Witness
Experts in maritime law and industry practices are often engaged in disputes over charter parties, wharfinger duties, and safe-berth obligations. Their insights clarify the implications of “always safely afloat” clauses and risk allocation in admiralty contracts. While not publicly cited in this case, such expertise is commonly relied upon in maritime contract litigation.
Environmental Science Expert Witness
Environmental experts are usually called in to assess oil spill response, cleanup operations, and ecological impacts, especially under frameworks such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. In such cases, cleanup costs and recovery obligations were central issues, making their insights into remediation, pollution effects, and regulatory compliance highly relevant. They help courts understand the scope and consequences of environmental damage.
Economic Damages Expert Witness
Economic damages experts are often engaged to assess cleanup costs, reimbursement claims, and allocation of liability under statutory regimes such as OPA. In this litigation, cleanup costs totaled approximately $143 million, requiring precise evaluation of response costs, subrogation claims, and interest calculations. Their role ensures courts understand financial consequences tied to maritime incidents and contract breaches.
Contract Language in Charter Parties Must Be Precise
The Supreme Court in CITGO v. Frescati held that the ASBATANKVOY safe-berth clause created an absolute warranty of safety, not a duty of due diligence. Attorneys drafting or litigating maritime contracts should ensure that charter-party language clearly states how berth-safety risk is allocated. When a voyage charter agreement contains unqualified safe-berth language, courts may enforce that language as a warranty rather than reading in a diligence-based limitation.
Maritime Risk Allocation Depends on Clear Charter-Party Terms
The case shows that charterers may bear liability for unsafe berths when the safe-berth clause is absolute. Legal teams should review terms governing wharfinger responsibilities, anchorage approaches, berth access, and terminal conditions before a dispute arises. Without limiting language, a charterer may face liability for port or terminal incidents tied to an unsafe berth.
Environmental and Economic Costs Can Drive Recovery Strategy
With approximately $143 million in oil-spill cleanup costs at issue, recovery under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 became central to the litigation. Frescati paid cleanup costs subject to a $45 million liability cap, while the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund reimbursed additional costs. For attorneys handling maritime spill disputes, the connection between charter-party obligations, cleanup expenses, and statutory reimbursement can affect both claims and defenses.
Appellate Strategy Requires Careful Use of Maritime Contract Precedent
The Third Circuit and Supreme Court decisions turned on maritime contract interpretation, safe-berth precedent, and the wording of the ASBATANKVOY clause. Counsel in similar disputes should be prepared to address both the text of the charter party and the admiralty-law rules governing safe-berth obligations. On appeal, the case shows how a contractual phrase can control liability when the factual record is already well developed.
Berth Safety and Navigation Evidence Can Affect Trial Strategy
The district court record included vessel-draft analysis, anchorage conditions, side-scan sonar evidence, hydrographic survey issues, and navigation testimony. Attorneys litigating safe-berth disputes should develop technical maritime evidence early so the trial record clearly addresses berth access, underwater hazards, vessel compliance, and navigation practices. In CITGO v. Frescati, that evidence helped frame the dispute before the appellate courts and the Supreme Court reviewed the legal effect of the safe-berth clause.
CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. arose from the 2004 M/T Athos I oil spill on the Delaware River, where an abandoned anchor punctured the tanker’s hull near CARCO’s Paulsboro berth and released approximately 264,000 gallons of heavy crude. The litigation moved through the district court, the Third Circuit, and the Supreme Court, focusing on cleanup-cost recovery, charter-party interpretation, and the ASBATANKVOY safe-berth clause. On March 30, 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed that the clause requiring the vessel to come and go “always safely afloat” created an absolute charterer warranty of safety, not a duty of due diligence. The ruling resolved the dispute by enforcing the unqualified contract language and confirming CARCO’s safe-berth obligation in the maritime charter-party context.
Why did the abandoned anchor matter in the CITGO v. Frescati litigation?
The abandoned anchor was the underwater obstruction that punctured the M/T Athos I’s hull as the tanker approached CARCO’s Paulsboro berth. Its location became central to the safe-berth dispute because Frescati and the United States argued that the berth approach was unsafe under the ASBATANKVOY clause requiring the vessel to come and go “always safely afloat.” The anchor tied the maritime incident to the contract question of whether CARCO’s safe-berth obligation was an absolute warranty or only a duty of due diligence.
What did the ASBATANKVOY safe-berth clause require?
The ASBATANKVOY safe-berth clause required the charterer to designate a berth where the vessel could come and go “always safely afloat.” In CITGO v. Frescati, the Supreme Court treated that language as unqualified. Because the clause did not include a due-diligence limitation, the Court held that it created an absolute warranty of safety.
How much oil spilled from the M/T Athos I?
The allision released approximately 264,000 gallons of heavy crude into the Delaware River. The spill led to extensive cleanup operations involving Frescati and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The cleanup costs at issue totaled about $143 million.
How did the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 affect the claims?
Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Frescati, as the vessel owner, paid cleanup costs subject to a $45 million liability cap. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund reimbursed about $88 million more. Frescati and the United States then sought recovery from CARCO based on the safe-berth clause in the voyage sub-charter.
How did the lower courts rule before the Supreme Court reviewed the case?
The district court initially found CARCO not liable after a bench trial. After the Third Circuit reversed in part and remanded, the district court later found that CARCO breached the safe-berth warranty. The Third Circuit then affirmed safe-berth warranty liability, setting the case up for Supreme Court review.
Marine Engineering Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Anthony Bowman used a software model called Seamaster to calculate the Athos I’s draft at the time of the allision. His model incorporated vessel dimensions, ballast status, loading conditions, ship records, and related vessel data. The District Court credited his testimony in finding that the vessel’s draft was 36′7″, within the contractually warranted maximum of 37′.
Hydrographic/Side-Scan Sonar Survey Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Vincent Capone provided expert testimony on hydrographic surveys of the Delaware River, side-scan sonar survey costs, and tide conditions at the time of the allision. His testimony helped address whether underwater survey work could have identified hazards in the approach to CARCO’s berth, including the abandoned anchor in Anchorage No. 9.
Side-Scan Sonar / Underwater Survey Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
John Fish was identified in the appellate record as Frescati’s expert. His side-scan sonar work formed part of the plaintiff-side evidence concerning underwater obstructions near the Athos I allision site, including survey evidence related to the later-recognized abandoned anchor.
Navigation and Seamanship Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Captain Betz, retained by Frescati, was a qualified harbor pilot and master mariner with decades of experience. He testified as an expert in navigation, seamanship, and safety, evaluating the fact-witness testimony of Captains Teal and Bethel. Betz concluded that the master pilot exchanges were adequate and customary in all respects, and that the Athos I was operated without negligent seamanship. His expert opinion reinforced the plaintiffs’ position that the incident stemmed from an unsafe berth rather than navigational error.
Maritime Expert Witness
Experts in maritime law and industry practices are often engaged in disputes over charter parties, wharfinger duties, and safe-berth obligations. Their insights clarify the implications of “always safely afloat” clauses and risk allocation in admiralty contracts. While not publicly cited in this case, such expertise is commonly relied upon in maritime contract litigation.
Environmental Science Expert Witness
Environmental experts are usually called in to assess oil spill response, cleanup operations, and ecological impacts, especially under frameworks such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. In such cases, cleanup costs and recovery obligations were central issues, making their insights into remediation, pollution effects, and regulatory compliance highly relevant. They help courts understand the scope and consequences of environmental damage.
Economic Damages Expert Witness
Economic damages experts are often engaged to assess cleanup costs, reimbursement claims, and allocation of liability under statutory regimes such as OPA. In this litigation, cleanup costs totaled approximately $143 million, requiring precise evaluation of response costs, subrogation claims, and interest calculations. Their role ensures courts understand financial consequences tied to maritime incidents and contract breaches.
Contract Language in Charter Parties Must Be Precise
The Supreme Court in CITGO v. Frescati held that the ASBATANKVOY safe-berth clause created an absolute warranty of safety, not a duty of due diligence. Attorneys drafting or litigating maritime contracts should ensure that charter-party language clearly states how berth-safety risk is allocated. When a voyage charter agreement contains unqualified safe-berth language, courts may enforce that language as a warranty rather than reading in a diligence-based limitation.
Maritime Risk Allocation Depends on Clear Charter-Party Terms
The case shows that charterers may bear liability for unsafe berths when the safe-berth clause is absolute. Legal teams should review terms governing wharfinger responsibilities, anchorage approaches, berth access, and terminal conditions before a dispute arises. Without limiting language, a charterer may face liability for port or terminal incidents tied to an unsafe berth.
Environmental and Economic Costs Can Drive Recovery Strategy
With approximately $143 million in oil-spill cleanup costs at issue, recovery under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 became central to the litigation. Frescati paid cleanup costs subject to a $45 million liability cap, while the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund reimbursed additional costs. For attorneys handling maritime spill disputes, the connection between charter-party obligations, cleanup expenses, and statutory reimbursement can affect both claims and defenses.
Appellate Strategy Requires Careful Use of Maritime Contract Precedent
The Third Circuit and Supreme Court decisions turned on maritime contract interpretation, safe-berth precedent, and the wording of the ASBATANKVOY clause. Counsel in similar disputes should be prepared to address both the text of the charter party and the admiralty-law rules governing safe-berth obligations. On appeal, the case shows how a contractual phrase can control liability when the factual record is already well developed.
Berth Safety and Navigation Evidence Can Affect Trial Strategy
The district court record included vessel-draft analysis, anchorage conditions, side-scan sonar evidence, hydrographic survey issues, and navigation testimony. Attorneys litigating safe-berth disputes should develop technical maritime evidence early so the trial record clearly addresses berth access, underwater hazards, vessel compliance, and navigation practices. In CITGO v. Frescati, that evidence helped frame the dispute before the appellate courts and the Supreme Court reviewed the legal effect of the safe-berth clause.
CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. arose from the 2004 M/T Athos I oil spill on the Delaware River, where an abandoned anchor punctured the tanker’s hull near CARCO’s Paulsboro berth and released approximately 264,000 gallons of heavy crude. The litigation moved through the district court, the Third Circuit, and the Supreme Court, focusing on cleanup-cost recovery, charter-party interpretation, and the ASBATANKVOY safe-berth clause. On March 30, 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed that the clause requiring the vessel to come and go “always safely afloat” created an absolute charterer warranty of safety, not a duty of due diligence. The ruling resolved the dispute by enforcing the unqualified contract language and confirming CARCO’s safe-berth obligation in the maritime charter-party context.
Why did the abandoned anchor matter in the CITGO v. Frescati litigation?
The abandoned anchor was the underwater obstruction that punctured the M/T Athos I’s hull as the tanker approached CARCO’s Paulsboro berth. Its location became central to the safe-berth dispute because Frescati and the United States argued that the berth approach was unsafe under the ASBATANKVOY clause requiring the vessel to come and go “always safely afloat.” The anchor tied the maritime incident to the contract question of whether CARCO’s safe-berth obligation was an absolute warranty or only a duty of due diligence.
What did the ASBATANKVOY safe-berth clause require?
The ASBATANKVOY safe-berth clause required the charterer to designate a berth where the vessel could come and go “always safely afloat.” In CITGO v. Frescati, the Supreme Court treated that language as unqualified. Because the clause did not include a due-diligence limitation, the Court held that it created an absolute warranty of safety.
How much oil spilled from the M/T Athos I?
The allision released approximately 264,000 gallons of heavy crude into the Delaware River. The spill led to extensive cleanup operations involving Frescati and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The cleanup costs at issue totaled about $143 million.
How did the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 affect the claims?
Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Frescati, as the vessel owner, paid cleanup costs subject to a $45 million liability cap. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund reimbursed about $88 million more. Frescati and the United States then sought recovery from CARCO based on the safe-berth clause in the voyage sub-charter.
How did the lower courts rule before the Supreme Court reviewed the case?
The district court initially found CARCO not liable after a bench trial. After the Third Circuit reversed in part and remanded, the district court later found that CARCO breached the safe-berth warranty. The Third Circuit then affirmed safe-berth warranty liability, setting the case up for Supreme Court review.
What did the Supreme Court decide on March 30, 2020?
The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that the safe-berth clause created an absolute warranty of safety. The Court affirmed the Third Circuit and rejected CARCO’s argument that the clause imposed only a duty of due diligence. The decision rested on the plain, unqualified contract language requiring the vessel to come and go “always safely afloat.”
Admiralty Law
Marine Survey
Navigation
Sonar
Vessel Operations
Ship Handling
Port Operations
Crude oil
Environmental Contamination
Environmental Remediation
Maritime, +4
Maritime
Marine Engineering, +3
Maritime
What did the Supreme Court decide on March 30, 2020?
The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that the safe-berth clause created an absolute warranty of safety. The Court affirmed the Third Circuit and rejected CARCO’s argument that the clause imposed only a duty of due diligence. The decision rested on the plain, unqualified contract language requiring the vessel to come and go “always safely afloat.”