This was a salvage claim under general maritime law and the Salvage Convention 1989, arising from a breakaway incident that occurred after Hurricane Ida made landfall in Louisiana on 29 August 2021. Captain Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, André Currault, Captain Sidney Freeman, and Lower River Ship Service LLC (the plaintiffs) filed a salvage claim in personam against American River Transportation Co LLC (ARTCO), and in rem against 38 ARTCO barges and their cargo, seeking a marine salvage award for voluntarily and successfully rescuing them from marine peril when they broke away from ARTCO's fleet as a result of the hurricane.

The two issues for the Court were: (1) whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a salvage award under general maritime law; and (2) if so, the amount of the salvage award under the Salvage Convention.

Held: Judgment in favour of the plaintiffs for a salvage award in the amount of USD 3,761,500 plus interest

The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 USC § 1333, general maritime law, and the Salvage Convention 1989. To the extent that there is any conflict between general maritime law principles and the Salvage Convention, the Convention will determine the outcome. The plaintiffs have standing to bring their salvage claim. The plaintiffs are entitled to a salvage award.

Under the Salvage Convention, art 1.a, a salvage operation means ‘any act or activity undertaken to assist a vessel or any other property in danger in navigable waters or in any other waters whatsoever'. The Convention does not appear to have eliminated the general maritime law's requirement that, to succeed on a salvage claim, a plaintiff must prove three elements: (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. The Convention echoes the voluntariness element in arts 6.1 and 17. Article 6.1 provides: 'This Convention shall apply to any salvage operations save to the extent that a contract otherwise provides expressly or by implication.' Article 17 similarly provides: 'No payment is due under the provisions of this Convention unless the services rendered exceed what can be reasonably considered as due performance of a contract entered into before the danger arose.'

The plaintiffs have sustained their burden of proving that the breakaway barges faced a marine peril, since at the time of the salvage efforts, the barges were in danger, either 'presently or reasonably to be apprehended', of causing significant injury or damage to themselves and other vessels or facilities as they floated downstream and away from ARTCO's fleet. The plaintiffs have also carried their burden of proving of rendering voluntary service in salvaging the breakaway barges. The parties agree that there was no legal or contractual duty or obligation between the plaintiffs and ARTCO with respect to the barges that broke out of ARTCO's fleets. Finally, the plaintiffs have shown that they were successful in slowing, catching, and beaching/mooring 23 of the barges that broke away from ARTCO's fleet. Their actions were successful because they prevented the breakaway barges from capsizing, sinking, damaging themselves, and damaging neighbouring property. The Court rejects ARTCO's argument that the salvage operation was not a success since some of ARTCO's barges capsized or sank.

Article 13.1 of the Salvage Convention states:

The reward shall be fixed with a view to encouraging salvage operations, taking into account the following criteria without regard to the order in which they are presented below:

(a) the salved value of the vessel and other property;

(b) the skill and efforts of the salvors in preventing or minimizing damage to the environment;

(c) the measure of success obtained by the salvor;

(d) the nature and degree of the danger;

(e) the skill and efforts of the salvors in salving the vessel, other property and life;

(f) the time used and expenses and losses incurred by the salvors;

(g) the risk of liability and other risks run by the salvors or their equipment;

(h) the promptness of the services rendered;

(i) the availability and use of vessels or other equipment intended for salvage operations;

(j) the state of readiness and efficiency of the salvor’s equipment and the value thereof.

Article 13.3 of the Convention further specifies that '[t]he rewards, exclusive of any interest and recoverable legal costs that may be payable thereon, shall not exceed the salved value of the vessel and other property'.

Regarding the first Convention factor, the salved value of the vessel or property, the 23 barges that broke away from ARTCO's fleet and were salvaged by the plaintiffs had a fair market value on 29 August 2021 of USD 18,807,500.

Turning to the second Convention factor, the Court finds that the plaintiffs presented minimal evidence beyond speculation that, but for their salvage efforts, the 23 ARTCO breakaway barges would have caused damage to the environment. Article 1.d of the Convention defines 'damage to the environment' as 'substantial physical damage to human health or to marine life or resources in coastal or inland waters or areas adjacent thereto, caused by pollution, contamination, fire, explosion or similar major incidents'. The evidence presented by the plaintiffs regarding the environmental damage that was allegedly prevented by their salvage operation is too speculative to support a higher salvage award here.

As to the third factor, the measure of success obtained, the assistance rendered by the plaintiffs, in promptly averting the downriver movement, destruction, and sinking of ARTCO's 23 breakaway barges, was highly successful and supports a substantial salvage award.

The fourth factor, the nature and degree of the danger, also weighs in favour of a substantial salvage award because the 23 ARTCO breakaway barges were in imminent danger of complete loss.

The fifth factor, the skill and efforts of the salvors in salving the vessels, other property, and life, further support a substantial salvage award.

Turning to the sixth factor, the time used and expenses and losses incurred by the salvors, the Court finds that the plaintiffs rescued ARTCO's 23 breakaway barges over the course of approximately 10 hours.

In respect of the seventh factor, the risk of liability and other risks run by the salvors or their equipment, the Court finds that the plaintiffs incurred an extremely high risk in preventing the downriver movement and sinking of ARTCO's breakaway barges, both as to the loss of their towing vessel, the M/V Shell Fueler, and their lives.

As to the eighth factor, the promptness of the services rendered, the plaintiffs reacted quickly to the ARTCO breakaway barges flowing downriver.

Regarding the ninth Convention factor, the availability and use of vessels or other equipment intended for salvage operations, the Court finds that the M/V Shell Fueler was the only vessel in the area with a crew willing or able to stop the downriver movement and sinking of ARTCO's breakaway barges.

Turning to the tenth and final factor, the state of readiness and efficiency of the salvor's equipment and the value thereof, the Court finds that the plaintiffs’ equipment, including the M/V Shell Fueler, its navigational equipment, mooring rope, and fuel, were in a state of readiness and efficiency that enabled the plaintiffs to quickly begin rescuing ARTCO's breakaway barges from continuing downriver and either sinking or causing property damage.

The Salvage Convention provides little guidance regarding how the Court is to weigh the ten factors, stating only that the 'reward shall be fixed with a view to encouraging salvage operations, taking into account the following criteria without regard to the order in which they are presented'. The clearest guidance offered by the Convention is that the 'rewards, exclusive of any interest and recoverable legal costs that may be payable thereon, shall not exceed the salved value of the vessel and other property'. In this case, the value of the salved property is USD 18,807,500.

The Court finds that seven of the ten Convention factors weigh in favour of a substantial salvage award, with the second, sixth, and tenth factors weighing against a substantial award.

The plaintiffs seek an award of USD 9,400,000, which is approximately 50% of the value of the salved property. The Court agrees with ARTCO that an award of USD 9.4 million would be the largest award in salvage history, would constitute a windfall to the plaintiffs, and is not warranted by the facts of this case. Weighing all the Convention factors, and guided by considerations of equity as well as the policy considerations of salvage awards, the Court concludes that a salvage award of USD 3,761,500, or 20% of the fair market value of ARTCO's 23 breakaway barges, is appropriate in this matter.