ELR Citation: ELR 21248
No(s). 92-0420 (E.D. La. Apr 22, 1993)

The court holds that a drilling platform owner's maritime tort claims against the owner and charterer of a vessel that was towing a seismic cable that struck a leg of the platform causing the cable to rupture and spill mineral oil into the ocean, can be asserted for purely economic loss and the owner's complaint stated a cause of action under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), but there is no private cause of action under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), and intentional tort and private and public nuisance claims will not be allowed. Following the rupture, the platform was required to shut down during the pollution investigation, resulting in the loss of revenues derived from production.

The court first holds that maritime tort claims for negligence can be asserted for purely economic loss where a plaintiff's ownership interest has been interfered with. The crucial factor in the analysis is the character of the plaintiff's interest, not whether the plaintiff or its property sustained any physical injury. The court next dismisses the owner's claim for an intentional tort. The owner failed to set forth specific facts showing that defendants intended to interfere with its contract.

Addressing the owner's nuisance claims, the court first holds that federal maritime law, not state nuisance law, controls the case. When the event in question occurs on an Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act situs but is also governed by maritime law, maritime law controls. And if federal maritime law controls, then state law will not apply. The court holds, however, that the owner did not establish a private nuisance claim, because the owner did not establish that the defendants intended to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the owner's maritime interest. The court also dismisses the owner's public nuisance claim, holding that federal law does not recognize this cause of action. The court holds that there is no private cause of action under FWPCA's §311(f). The language of §311(f) indicates that the Act does not authorize private parties to bring suit to recover damages. Finally, the court holds that the owner can maintain an action under OPA §1002(b)(2)(E). The owner, however, may not recover damages under §1002(b)(2)(B), because loss of revenue is not physical injury to personal or real property, nor under §1002(b)(2)(C), because it did not make subsistence use of natural resources since it had a commercial purpose in drilling for petroleum. In addition, the owner may be able to recover for loss of profits under this subsection, having alleged that the mineral oil spill caused a loss of future production revenues.

Counsel for Plaintiff
James G. Burke Jr., Andrew C. Wilson
Burke & Mayer
Energy Ctr., 1100 Poydras St., 20th Fl., New Orleans LA 70163
(504) 569-2900

Counsel for Defendants
Cecil G. Starling Jr., John C. Duplantier
Gelpi, Sullivan, Carroll & Gibbons
430 Notre Dame St., New Orleans LA 70130
(504) 524-9714