These were an appeal and cross-appeal in cassation against a judgment of the Montpellier Court of Appeal of 31 October 2017. The claims arose from the capsizing in April 2006 of the catamaran Accroch'coeur, while returning from a regatta in Ibiza and heading for its home port Canet-en-Roussillon. Four of the six crew members died as a result of this shipwreck. The ship's captain at the time of the incident was X. X and the insurer, Mutuelles du Mans Assurances IARD, were judicially authorised to constitute a limitation fund under the LLMC 1976 (the 1996 Protocol not yet being in force).

The claimants in the cross-appeal objected to the judgment limiting the amount of their compensation to EUR 204,245.55 in its application of the LLMC 1976. They argued that:

1) The compensation ceilings instituted by the LLMC 1976 for the benefit of the liable party and its insurers only constituted a faculty from which it is possible to derogate by special agreements. By holding, on the contrary, that the contracting parties to an insurance contract would not be authorised to exceed the limitation imposed by the Convention, the Court of Appeal violated art 1 of the LLMC 1976.

2) According to art 4 of the LLMC 1976, a responsible party loses the right to limit its liability if it is proven that the damage resulted from its personal act or omission, committed with intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result. By refraining from investigating whether the master had not committed an inexcusable fault such as to exclude the implementation of compensation ceilings, the Court of Appeal deprived its decision of a legal basis with regard to the aforementioned provision.

3) Considering arts 61 and 64(3)of Law n° 67-5 of 3 January 1967 relating to the Statute of Ships and other Seagoing Vessels, now L 5121-5 and L 5121-10 of the Transport Code, together with art 6.2 of the LLMC 1976, it follows that the limit of liability of the owner of a vessel with a tonnage less than 300 tons is equal, for claims for death or bodily harm, to SDR 166,500 and, for other claims, to SDR 83,500; and that, if the amount of the first ceiling is insufficient to settle all of the compensation due to the victim of bodily injuries, the balance of this compensation is paid, in competition with other claims, within the limit of the second ceiling. However, the judgment limited the right to compensation to only the ceiling applicable to claims for death and bodily harm. By so ruling, while it resulted from its findings that the total compensation it allocated to the victims exceeded this ceiling, so that the latter could claim to be compensated within the overall limit of the two ceilings, the balance of the compensation to be paid within the limit of the ceiling applicable to other claims, in competition with them where appropriate, the Court of Appeal, which did not elaborate on the legal consequences of its findings, violated the aforementioned provisions.

Held: Partial reversal.

As to ground 1), having noted that the guarantee ceiling provided for in the insurance contract was intended to apply to any liability incurred by the insured, thus showing that it was not applicable only in cases where the insured could claim a limitation of liability under art 58 of law n° 67-5 of 3 January 1967, now article L 5121-3 of the Transport Code, the Court of Appeal correctly held that the stipulation of a guarantee ceiling in the insurance contract did not prevent the insured, and his insurer, from invoking the limitation of legal liability provided for by the LLMC 1976. This ground is therefore unfounded.

As to ground 2), it does not follow from the judgment, or from the claimants' appeal submissions, that they maintained that the faults of the master were of an inexcusable character such as to make him lose his right to limitation of liability. The Court of Appeal therefore did not have to carry out research which was not requested and that it did not have to do ex officio. This ground is unfounded.

As to ground 3), this ground of appeal is admissible. The judgment limits the right to compensation to only the ceiling applicable to claims for death and bodily harm. By so ruling, while it resulted from its findings that the total compensation it allocated to the victims exceeded this ceiling, so that the latter could claim to be compensated within the overall limit of the two ceilings, the balance of the compensation to be paid within the limit of the ceiling applicable to other claims, in competition with them where appropriate, the Court of Appeal, which did not elaborate on the legal consequences of its findings, violated the relevant provisions. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is therefore struck down and annulled, but only insofar as it says that 'in application of the London Convention the condemnation to compensation for the damages of FY ... X ... guaranteed in solidum by the company MMA will be exercised in the limit of a maximum amount of 204,245.55 euros, with interest at the legal rate from February 26, 2010 for the benefit of the beneficiaries of CT ... A ..., from January 11, 2011 for the benefit of beneficiaries of SE ... G ... '. The judgment delivered on 31 October 2017 between the parties by the Montpellier Court of Appeal is consequently reversed on this point, and is sent back for rehearing before the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence.