On March 24, 2013, a helicopter owned by the defendant began experiencing unusual vibrations when operating over the Gulf of Mexico en route to an oil platform. Unsure of whether the helicopter could make it safely back to the coast, the flight captain decided to the land the USD 2 million helicopter and its nine passengers on the deck of the Aeolian Heritage, a Greek-flagged Panamax bulk carrier owned by the plaintiffs. Since the nature of any mechanical problems with the helicopter remained unknown, the vessel operator deviated from the intended course and delivered the rescued passengers and helicopter to the nearby port in Corpus Christi, Texas.

The Greek shipowners filed suit to recover expenses incurred and an additional salvage award from the American helicopter owners under the International Convention on Salvage 1989 (Salvage Convention). The defendants did not dispute that the shipowner should be compensated for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in carrying the helicopter and rescued passengers to port. However, the defendants argued that the shipowners were not entitled to a salvage award under legal principles reflected in the general maritime law of the United States and argued that the Salvage Convention did not apply to claims brought in the United States.

The issues before the court were:

(1) Whether the substantive law governing the salvage claim should derive from the Salvage Convention or the general maritime law;

(2) Whether the helicopter is property eligible for recovery of a salvage award;

(3) Whether the salvage award (if any) should be reduced since not all eligible salvors joined the shipowners in the lawsuit;

(4) Whether the salvage award (if any) should include prejudgment interest

Held: The court held that the Salvage Convention applied to the case and, if there is any inconsistency between the Salvage Convention and the general maritime law, the Salvage Convention should govern. The court reasoned that the Salvage Convention is a treaty recognized as 'supreme Law of the Land' under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The court further reasoned that the Salvage Convention is 'self-executing' and therefore does not require any implementing legislation to be effective.

Interpreting art 2 of the Convention, the court found that the case was within the scope of the Convention since the case was brought in the United States, which is a party.

Interpreting art 12.1 of the Convention, the court found that it was not necessary for the salvor’s vessel to encounter a physical danger during the salvage operation.

Interpreting art 1.c of the Convention, the court found that the helicopter qualified as salvageable 'property'. Furthermore, the court found under art 1.a, the risk posed to the helicopter met the standard of the 'danger in navigable waters' even though the helicopter never entered the water.  The court also found that the crew had performed the requisite 'act or activity' under art 1.a, even though the vessel operators took no affirmative steps to land the helicopter.

The court then determined the appropriate salvage award by applying the ten factors contained in art 13 of the Convention, but also acknowledged that the other factors articulated under the general maritime law could still be used as persuasive authority. Interpreting art 13.1.e of the Convention, the court held that it was not required to grant an additional monetary award on the basis of the value of any lives saved. Applying the remaining factors of art 13 and considering the policy goals articulated under the general maritime law, the court concluded that the shipowner was entitled to a salvage award of USD 50,000, plus an additional USD 15,649.12 in actual costs incurred.

Interpreting art 15 of the Convention, the court determined that the issue of apportionment of the salvage award between the shipowner and others must be determined under the law of the flag state. Applying Greek law, the court found that the shipowner was barred from recovering more than 50% of the salvage award because it had not demonstrated that it received an assignment from other eligible salvors to collect their proportion of the award.

Interpreting art 24 of the Convention, the court applied United States law to determine that prejudgment interest was recoverable at a rate of 4%.

As a result, the court found the shipowners were entitled to recover from the helicopter owners a total of USD 40,649.12 plus 4% prejudgment interest.