Sunglory Mar., Ltd. v. PHI, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION CASE NO. 15–896 |
| Parties | SUNGLORY MARITIME, LTD., et al. v. PHI, INC., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
212 F.Supp.3d 618
SUNGLORY MARITIME, LTD., et al.
v.
PHI, INC., et al.
CIVIL ACTION CASE NO. 15–896
United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.
Signed September 9, 2016
Robert Burns Fisher, Jr., Alan Davis, Derek Anthony Walker, Chaffe McCall LLP, Joseph Benedict Marino, III, Preis PLC, New Orleans, LA, for Sunglory Maritime, Ltd., et al.
Henry A. King, Michael L. Vincenzo, King, Krebs & Jurgens, PLLC, New Orleans, LA, for PHI, Inc., et al.
SECTION: "G" (5)
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter came before the Court for trial without a jury from March 17, 2016, to March 18, 2016.1 The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333, which confers on the federal district courts original jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime claims, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which provides for original jurisdiction over diversity actions. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and by stipulation between the parties, pursuant to a Letter of Undertaking dated March 25, 2013. The substantive law applicable to this case is the International Convention on Salvage, 19892 ("Salvage Convention") and the general maritime law.3
The Court has carefully considered the testimony of all of the witnesses and the exhibits entered into evidence during the trial, as well as the record. After reviewing all of the evidence and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 52(a), the Court issues the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. To the extent that any finding of fact may be construed as a conclusion of law, the Court hereby adopts
it as such, and to the extent that any conclusion of law constitutes a finding of fact, the Court hereby adopts it as such.
I. BACKGROUND
This case involves a claim for salvage pursuant to the 1989 Salvage Convention arising out of an incident in which a helicopter operated by Defendant PHI, Inc. ("PHI") made an emergency landing aboard a vessel owned by Sunglory Maritime Ltd. and managed by Aeolian Investments S.A. after experiencing unusual vibrations while en route to an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. The vessel then carried the helicopter back to shore, where it was removed by crane.
In April of 2015, Plaintiffs filed a claim for costs, seeking the additional fuel expenses and demurrage incurred carrying the Aircraft to port, as well as their survey costs.4 PHI does not dispute that Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable and actual out-of-pocket costs incurred as a result of the aircraft landing on the Vessel.5 However, Plaintiffs also seek a reward for maritime "salvage" under the general maritime law and the Salvage Convention.6 As the owners of the vessel upon which the helicopter made its landing, Plaintiffs contend that they qualify as voluntary salvors of the helicopter, and should be awarded a monetary award based on the value of the aircraft and the lives saved by the vessel's actions.7 PHI contends, on various grounds, that Plaintiffs are not entitled to a salvage award.
Plaintiffs filed the instant complaint on March 23, 2015.8 On January 5, 2016, PHI filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs are not entitled to an award of maritime salvage under either general maritime law or the 1989 Salvage Convention.9 On the same date, PHI filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the expert testimony of Professor Martin C. Davies, a law professor at Tulane University specializing in maritime salvage law.10 The Court denied both motions,11 and a trial without a jury was held from March 17, 2016, to March 18, 2016.12
On July 13, 2016, the Court ordered additional briefing to address several issues that had not been adequately covered in the parties' pretrial memoranda.13 Plaintiffs submitted a post-trial memorandum on July 22, 2016,14 to which PHI filed a response on July 29, 2016.15 On August 4, 2016, with leave of Court, Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum.16
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The Parties and Property Involved
1. Plaintiffs Sunglory Maritime Ltd. ("Sunglory") and Aeolian Investments SA ("Aeolian Investments") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") are corporations organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Greece, with their principal office and place of business in Piraeus, Greece.17
Sunglory is the owner, and Aeolian Investments is the manager, of the M/V AEOLIAN HERITAGE (the "Vessel"), a Panamax bulk carrier engaged in international trade.18
2. PHI, Inc. ("PHI") is a Louisiana corporation with its principal place of business in Lafayette, Louisiana.19 The company operates aircraft engaged in passenger transportation under Part 135 ("Commuter and On–Demand Operations") of the Federal Aviation regulations.20
3. The insured value of the PHI helicopter no. N764P at the time of the landing on the Vessel was approximately $2,000,000.00.21
4. The helicopter weighed 10,800 pounds.22
5. The helicopter had a life raft and pontoons aboard it.23
6. The Vessel has a value of $50,000,000.00.24
B. Events Leading to Landing on the Vessel
7. On March 24, 2013, PHI helicopter no. N764P (the "Aircraft") was traveling on an outbound flight over the Gulf of Mexico carrying two crew members and seven passengers.25
8. At the time the helicopter departed, it had a full tank of fuel.26
9. In addition, the pilots and passengers aboard the Aircraft were wearing life vests, and the helicopter had life rafts onboard.27
10. Approximately ten miles from shore, the pilot in command, Dean Cole ("Cole"), detected a vibration coming from the Aircraft.28
11. First, co-pilot Joshua Brackett ("Brackett") heard an initial pop or bang and felt a slight yaw,29 defined as a motion about the vertical axis of the helicopter, or in other words, a left and right movement.30
12. Following the bang and yaw, the pilots began to experience an unusual and recurring vibration that could be heard by the pilots and felt through their feet.31
13. Unsure of the source of the vibration, and approximately 50 miles away from the destined platform, Cole immediately turned the Aircraft around and headed for shore.32
14. After detecting the vibration, Cole tested the Aircraft's controls and found no obvious problems.33
15. Cole then attempted to reach air traffic control but was unable to reach them, apparently because the helicopter was in a dead zone portion of the Gulf of Mexico, where radio coverage was unavailable.34
16. After Cole was unable to make contact with anyone, he activated the emergency, or "may day," switch, which informed PHI—but not the Coast Guard—that the helicopter was experiencing a problem.35
17. The pilots pulled out an "emergency check list" published by PHI to see if they could identify the problem they were experiencing, but the list did not help the pilots diagnose the cause of the vibrations.36
18. Although the Aircraft was fully controllable, the vibrations continued and grew in duration and strength.37
19. At that point, the Aircraft was about six minutes from land, and flying above a staging area for the port of Corpus Christi, where cargo ships anchor awaiting berths.38
20. Cole then decided that the safest course of action was to land on one of the anchored vessels.39
21. This decision was made in order to avoid "something worse [that] might happen,"40 and because of Cole's fear that it "would be hard to explain to the FAA if [the helicopter] did not make it ... why [he] passed up a heliport or helipad underneath [him]."41
22. Although the pilots believed they were making a precautionary landing, they acknowledged that, because they did not know the cause of the vibration, one possible outcome of not landing as soon as possible was that they might have to "ditch" the helicopter into the water.42
23. The Aircraft initially approached a different ship, but that ship was unsuitable for landing due to obstructions on the deck.43
24. The Aircraft crew then sighted the Plaintiffs' vessel, which was along the helicopter's flight path44 and had a hatch cover marked with the "H" designation, the customary way to designate the location where helicopters should land on a vessel.45
25. The helicopter then circled the Vessel twice to make sure that the helipad was clear of obstructions and people.46...
26. Neither Cole nor his co-pilot, Joshua Brackett ("Brackett"), was able to contact anyone aboard the Vessel, and the Vessel did not grant permission for the Aircraft to land.47
27. Because Brackett had a better view for landing, Brackett took over the controls48 and executed a normal, controlled landing.49
28. Brackett landed the helicopter on hatch cover # 6,
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curran v. Wepfer Marine, Inc.
... ... services.” Sunglory Mar., Ltd. V. PHI, Inc., ... 212 F.Supp.3d 618, 655 (E.D. La. 2016); ... ...