ELR Citation: ELR 20630
No(s). A88-115 (D. Alaska Sep 28, 1990)

The court holds that all provable damages sustained by any person as a result of a Trans-Alaska Pipeline System oil spill are compensable and are not limited by established maritime law; that provable economic loss is recoverable under both the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (TAPAA) and the Alaska Environmental Conservation Act (Alaska Act) by both fishermen and nonfishermen without evidence of physical harm; that fishermen's claims are timely filed under the statute of limitations; and that fishermen are entitled to recover attorney fees and both pre- and post-judgment interest, computed at the rate provided for by federal law. The court holds that maritime law applies to an oil spill that is a maritime tort because it occurs on navigable waters and bears a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity. Maritime law applies even though stakeholders did not invoke Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 9(h) is purely a procedural provision that permits a plaintiff to identify her claim in admiralty to incur procedural benefits; it does not authorize her to choose the substantive law that applies. The court holds that §1653 of TAPAA, which imposes strict liability for environmental harm, may not be modified by any preexisting law. Reviewing the plain language of the statute, the Department of the Interior regulations, and the legislative history of TAPAA, the court holds that the damages that can be recovered under TAPAA include all provable damage from oil spills and that Congress intended to provide adequate compensation by departing from maritime common law. The court holds that maritime law does not preempt the application of state law to Trans-Alaska Pipeline system oil spills. The court holds that the Alaska Act does not impose a requirement that claimants establish physical harm to recover damage for economic loss. In response to fishermen's request for a declaratory ruling that all claims were filed within the statute of limitations' time period, the court finds that only two plaintiffs' claims are in dispute. The court holds that the question of whether amendments to a complaint relate back to the date of the original complaint is a question of federal procedure not controlled by state law. Under Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, amending a complaint to add parties will relate back to the filing of the original complaint if the requisite notice and identity of interests showings are made. In this case, additional fishermen may be added to the complaint because there is no prejudice to the liable party. Increased liability is not sufficient prejudice to deny relation back. The court holds that although TAPAA does not specifically award attorney fees, Congress intended for TAPAA to provide adequate compensation to those who suffered damages from a Trans-Alaska Pipeline system oil spill. Because the Fund under TAPAA can recover for attorney fees, equity permits the injured parties to recover such fees from the Fund. The court holds that federal law applies to determining whether costs and witness fees are also compensable. The court holds that fishermen are entitled to pre-judgment interest because their recovery would be incomplete otherwise and because TAPAA awards pre-judgment interest to the Fund. The court also holds that plaintiffs are entitled to post-judgment interest at a rate determined by 28 U.S.C. §1961.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Brian B. O'Neill
Faegre & Benson
2200 Norwest Center, 90 S. Seventh St., Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 336-3000

Counsel for Defendants
Michael H. Woodell
Bradbury, Bliss & Riordan
431 W. Seventh Ave., Ste. 201, Anchorage AK 99501
(907) 278-4511