## Facts

- Inbesa America, Inc., a terminal operator at the Port of Houston, provided docking and cargo-handling services and subcontracted stevedoring work.
- Inbesa and Genesis Container Line entered a “Stevedoring and Terminal Services Contract” under which Inbesa would perform services for Genesis’s liner operations, including dockage and stevedoring.
- Reederei MS Anglia GmbH & Co. KG owned the M/V Anglia and time-chartered the vessel to Genesis for use in Genesis’s liner service.
- From July through November 1995, the Anglia received services at Inbesa’s Houston terminal under the Inbesa–Genesis contract.
- Inbesa billed Genesis in itemized categories, including dockage and stevedoring, as well as terminal operations performed ashore such as unloading cargo from trucks and moving cargo through the wharf.
- Genesis failed to pay; Inbesa filed a verified in rem action against the M/V Anglia to enforce claimed maritime liens for the billed amounts.
- The vessel owner contested admiralty jurisdiction, arguing the contract included substantial nonmaritime, land-based obligations.

## Issues

1. Whether a terminal-services contract covering both maritime services (e.g., dockage and stevedoring) and land-based terminal operations falls within federal admiralty jurisdiction in its entirety.
2. Whether, and to what extent, maritime liens may be asserted against a vessel for charges arising from a mixed maritime/nonmaritime services contract.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Inbesa and vacated the determination that the contract was wholly maritime.
- The court held the agreement was a mixed contract containing maritime and nonmaritime components, so admiralty jurisdiction did not automatically extend to the entire contract.
- The case was remanded for a component-by-component determination of which services were maritime, whether nonmaritime elements were separable, and whether admiralty jurisdiction (and any maritime liens) could attach only to maritime portions.

## Legal Principles

- Admiralty contract jurisdiction turns on the contract’s nature and subject matter; it does not attach merely because services relate to shipping.
- Dockage and stevedoring are traditionally maritime services and may support admiralty jurisdiction when properly at issue.
- For mixed maritime/nonmaritime contracts, admiralty jurisdiction over the whole contract exists only if the nonmaritime elements are insubstantial or cannot be separated without materially altering the parties’ bargain.
- Separately itemized and priced services are evidence that contractual obligations may be divisible for jurisdictional purposes.
- Maritime liens arise only for maritime services or obligations; land-based terminal services generally do not support maritime liens absent a sufficient maritime basis.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit rejected treating a terminal-services agreement as wholly maritime where it included significant, separately billed land-based services, and required the district court on remand to separate maritime from nonmaritime components to determine the proper scope of admiralty jurisdiction and any resulting maritime liens.


Inbesa Am., Inc. v. M/V Anglia, 134 F.3d 1035 (11th Cir. 1998)