## Facts

- B & F Trawlers, Inc. owned the F/V STAR TREK, a U.S.-documented shrimping vessel.
- International Bank, N.A. held a first preferred ship’s mortgage securing a loan of about $120,000; B & F was in default.
- The U.S. Coast Guard stopped and inspected the STAR TREK in the Gulf of Mexico, found it carrying marijuana, seized it, and began towing it.
- While the Coast Guard had custody of the vessel during towing, a fire broke out onboard.
- The Coast Guard removed the crew and ultimately scuttled the burning vessel.
- B & F alleged the vessel had been stolen and that it had notified the Coast Guard of the theft before the seizure and destruction; the vessel was allegedly worth about $200,000 and uninsured.
- B & F and the bank sued the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act (SIAA) and Public Vessels Act (PVA), alleging negligent care, custody, and control and wrongful (intentional) sinking by the Coast Guard.

## Issues

1. Whether the FTCA discretionary-function exception applies to maritime claims brought under the SIAA and PVA.
2. Whether the Coast Guard’s decisions during seizure and emergency response (towing, firefighting, and scuttling) constitute discretionary functions immune from suit.
3. Whether the FTCA “detention of goods” exception for law-enforcement officers is incorporated into the SIAA/PVA.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held the FTCA discretionary-function exception is incorporated into the SIAA and PVA.
- The court held the Coast Guard’s response to the fire and decision to scuttle the vessel involved judgment and policy considerations and therefore fell within discretionary-function immunity.
- The court declined to incorporate the FTCA law-enforcement “detention of goods” exception into the SIAA/PVA framework.

## Legal Principles

- Waivers of federal sovereign immunity in admiralty (SIAA/PVA) are limited; courts read them consistently with retained immunities applicable to analogous tort claims.
- The FTCA discretionary-function exception (28 U.S.C. § 2680(a)) applies to SIAA/PVA claims and bars suit when challenged conduct (1) involves judgment or choice not compelled by mandatory directives and (2) is of the kind grounded in social, economic, or political policy.
- Emergency maritime law-enforcement and safety decisions by the Coast Guard—including whether and how to save, tow, or destroy a seized vessel—are typically discretionary and not subject to tort review.
- Claimants cannot avoid discretionary-function immunity by styling the case as ordinary negligence in “care, custody, and control” under admiralty statutes rather than as an FTCA claim.
- Not all FTCA exceptions are imported into admiralty waivers; the court declined to read the FTCA detention-of-goods exception (28 U.S.C. § 2680(c)) into the SIAA/PVA.

## Conclusion

Because the Coast Guard’s actions in handling a seized vessel during an onboard fire, including the decision to scuttle it, were discretionary governmental decisions grounded in policy considerations, sovereign immunity barred the owners’ and mortgagee’s SIAA/PVA claims, and the dismissal was affirmed.


B & F Trawlers, Inc. v. United States, 841 F.2d 626 (5th Cir. 1988)