Chuc Nguyen v. American Commercial Lines, L

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
81 ERC (BNA) 2016, 805 F.3d 134, 2015 A.M.C. 2763 (2015)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), a proper presentment of a claim to a responsible party requires only a written request for a sum certain, not compliance with regulations governing claims against the government Fund. However, a claimant must strictly adhere to the mandatory 90-day negotiation period before filing suit, even if waiting the full 90 days would cause the claim to fall outside the three-year statute of limitations.

Facts:

On July 23, 2008, a barge owned by American Commercial Lines (ACL) collided with another vessel, spilling oil into the Mississippi River and contaminating fishing grounds.
ACL was designated as the 'responsible party' under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) and hired a third-party administrator, Worley, to handle damage claims.
In June 2009, an attorney representing fishermen submitted claim letters to Worley demanding compensation for lost earnings and subsistence use.
These letters were signed by the attorney rather than the individual fishermen and included some, but not all, documentation (licenses and selected receipts).
Worley requested additional evidence, including tax returns, daily catch records, and maps, claiming the initial submissions were insufficient.
The attorney provided tax returns but did not provide all other requested items.
On July 22, 2011, nearly three years after the spill, the attorney submitted new and amended claims for certain claimants.
Without waiting for a denial or a settlement offer on these new claims, the claimants initiated litigation just three days later.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The District Court initially granted ACL's motion to dismiss the claims for failure to properly present them.
The District Court later vacated its own dismissal and ordered ACL to file a motion for summary judgment.
The District Court denied ACL's motion for summary judgment, ruling the plaintiffs had satisfied OPA requirements.
The District Court certified an interlocutory appeal on two controlling questions of law.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

1) Does a claimant satisfy the Oil Pollution Act's presentment requirement by submitting a written demand for a sum certain signed by an attorney, without providing all additional evidence requested by the responsible party? 2) Does the impending expiration of the three-year statute of limitations excuse a claimant from complying with the mandatory 90-day waiting period after presenting a claim?

Opinions:

Majority - per curiam

1) Yes, the claimants satisfied the substantive presentment requirements because the OPA only demands a written request for a sum certain. The court rejected ACL's argument that claimants must adhere to the stricter evidence regulations found in 33 C.F.R. § 136.105. The court reasoned that those regulations explicitly apply to claims filed against the government's Oil Liability Trust Fund, not to claims presented to a private responsible party. The definition of a 'claim' in the statute requires only a written request for a specific amount. Since the materials provided were sufficient to allow ACL to negotiate a settlement, the presentment was valid. Furthermore, attorney signatures are sufficient as the statute does not mandate personal signatures. 2) No, the statute of limitations does not excuse non-compliance with the 90-day waiting period. The court held that the OPA's presentment requirement (waiting 90 days) and the statute of limitations (filing within 3 years) operate independently. Claimants who presented claims on July 22, 2011, and sued on July 25, 2011, failed to meet the mandatory condition precedent of the 90-day wait. The court distinguished this from cases where the responsible party was unknown until the last minute; here, the claimants had ample time to file. Therefore, the claims filed without the 90-day wait are barred.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the procedural hurdles plaintiffs must clear under the Oil Pollution Act. It is a victory for plaintiffs regarding the content of a claim, establishing that responsible parties cannot stonewall negotiations by demanding excessive documentation based on regulations meant for the government Trust Fund. A simple written demand for a specific amount suffices to trigger the negotiation clock. However, the decision is a strict warning regarding timing. Plaintiffs cannot procrastinate; they must present their claim at least 90 days before the three-year statute of limitations expires. The Fifth Circuit refused to apply equitable doctrines to save claims where the plaintiffs simply waited too long to initiate the process.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Chuc Nguyen v. American Commercial Lines, L (2015)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"