Energetic Tank, Inc. v. Unknown

Background

Energetic Tank, Inc., the owner of the M/V ALNIC, filed a petition under 46 U.S.C. §§ 30501 et seq. seeking exoneration from liability or limitation of liability. It moved for a ruling that Singapore law applied to all substantive issues of liability and damages. The claimants, including more than 40 members of the U.S.S. JOHN S. MCCAIN’s crew who alleged personal injuries, representatives of sailors who died, and the U.S. Government, argued that United States law applied.

The M/V ALNIC, a Liberian-flagged merchant vessel, collided with the U.S.S. JOHN S. MCCAIN, a United States Navy guided-missile destroyer, in the Singapore Strait Traffic Separation Scheme on August 21, 2017. Ten sailors died and 48 were injured. The opinion states that there were no fatalities or injuries aboard the ALNIC. Singapore provided emergency assistance, hospital care, and vessels, and Singapore’s Transport Safety Investigation Bureau investigated the collision and reported that it occurred in Singapore territorial waters.

Legal framework

The court discussed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, which requires reasonable notice when a party intends to raise an issue involving foreign law. It found that Energetic Tank gave timely notice of its position.

The court also reviewed maritime choice-of-law principles. It explained that collisions in foreign territorial waters are generally governed by the law of the country where the collision occurred. The claimants relied on the factors identified in Lauritzen v. Larsen and expanded in Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Rhoditis, including the place of the wrongful act, the ships’ flags, the injured parties’ and shipowner’s domiciles, the place of any contract, the accessibility of a foreign forum, the law of the forum, and the shipowner’s base of operations.

Analysis

The court concluded that the Lauritzen-Rhoditis framework, which was developed for Jones Act cases, was not suited to this limitation-of-liability case involving a collision far from the United States, the COLREGS, a Liberian-flagged vessel, and a U.S. Navy vessel based in Japan. The court found that the other factors did not point consistently toward United States law or another body of law. It also rejected the argument that the dispute over the waters between Singapore and Malaysia prevented the court from selecting Singapore law. The court stated that it was not deciding sovereignty over those waters or resolving a political question.

The court emphasized that both vessels were headed to Singapore and were in the Singapore Traffic Separation Scheme. Singapore acted as though the collision occurred in its waters by providing assistance, medical care, and an investigation. The court also noted that no party identified a relevant difference between Malaysian and Singapore law and that both countries had ratified the Brussels Convention concerning collisions between vessels.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Crotty granted the motion for application of foreign law. The court held that Singapore law is the appropriate substantive law for determining liability and the availability and calculation of damages in the admiralty case. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket 209.