## Facts

- A seaman aboard the M/V TRANSPORTER, Eroica R. Hall, suffered catastrophic injuries in a shipboard accident, including the loss of both legs.
- The vessel interests (Transporter Marine, Inc. and related owners/operators) filed a federal limitation action under the Limitation of Liability Act, seeking to limit liability arising from the casualty.
- After the accident, the U.S. Coast Guard initiated administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties for alleged violations of federal drug-and-alcohol testing requirements applicable after a “serious marine incident” (46 C.F.R. Part 4, including § 4.06-1), enforced through statutory civil-penalty authority (including 46 U.S.C. § 2115).
- Transporter Marine argued that the limitation proceeding should encompass all claims arising from the casualty, including the Coast Guard’s civil penalty claims.
- The Coast Guard argued its penalty action was a public regulatory enforcement matter, not a compensatory “claim” within the Limitation Act, and that the alleged testing violations were temporally remote from the accident.
- The district court held that the Limitation of Liability Act did not bar or limit the Coast Guard’s civil penalty claims, and Transporter Marine appealed.
- Hall’s personal-injury claim settled; the appeal proceeded only as to the Coast Guard penalty dispute.

## Issues

1. Whether Coast Guard civil penalty enforcement for post-incident drug-and-alcohol testing violations constitutes a “claim” subject to the Limitation of Liability Act’s concursus.
2. If such penalties are “claims,” whether the vessel owner may limit exposure to them through the limitation fund.
3. Whether the post-incident timing and regulatory character of the alleged violations place them outside the Limitation Act’s scope.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court.
- The court held that Coast Guard civil penalty claims for alleged violations of post-incident drug-and-alcohol testing regulations are not subject to the Limitation of Liability Act’s limitation and concursus procedures.
- The Coast Guard may pursue its administrative civil penalties independently of the limitation proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- The Limitation of Liability Act is directed at private, compensatory liabilities arising from a maritime casualty, not public regulatory enforcement actions seeking civil penalties.
- Civil penalties assessed under Coast Guard safety and operating regulations (including post-incident testing rules) are regulatory and deterrent in purpose and are not treated as limitation “claims.”
- Post-casualty regulatory duties that are temporally and conceptually separate from the casualty itself may create liabilities that are not “arising from” the casualty for Limitation Act purposes.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that a vessel owner cannot use the Limitation of Liability Act to centralize or cap the Coast Guard’s civil penalties for alleged post-incident drug-and-alcohol testing violations; those regulatory enforcement claims proceed outside the limitation action.


In re Transporter Marine, Inc., 217 F.3d 335 (5th Cir. 2000)