## Facts

- Two vessels, the M/V SEA DANIEL (inbound bulk carrier) and the M/V TESTBANK (outbound container ship), collided in the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.
- The collision released a haze later identified as hydrobromic acid and resulted in a spill of approximately twelve tons of pentachlorophenol (PCP); cargo containers were damaged and some were lost overboard.
- The U.S. Coast Guard closed the waterway to navigation for a period and suspended fishing and related activity in the outlet and surrounding marsh and waterways.
- Numerous plaintiffs, including the State of Louisiana and private businesses (e.g., marinas, boat rental operators, seafood retailers not engaged in fishing, restaurants, bait and tackle shops, and recreational fishermen), sought damages for losses attributed to the closure and spill.
- Many plaintiffs alleged lost profits and other economic harms without alleging physical injury to property they owned.

## Issues

1. In an unintentional maritime tort, may plaintiffs recover purely economic losses without showing physical damage to a proprietary interest?
2. Should maritime law abandon the requirement of physical damage to a proprietary interest as a prerequisite to recovering economic loss?

## Decision

- The en banc Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment denying recovery for claims seeking purely economic losses unaccompanied by physical damage to a proprietary interest.
- The court held that physical damage to a proprietary interest remains a necessary prerequisite for recovery of economic loss in unintentional maritime tort.
- The court declined to replace the physical-damage requirement with a case-by-case “remoteness” or policy-balancing approach.
- The district court’s allowance of claims by commercial fishermen directly using the affected waters was not disturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Maritime tort plaintiffs generally may not recover purely economic loss unless there is physical damage to property in which the plaintiff has a proprietary interest.
- The rule associated with Robins Dry Dock operates as a categorical limitation on liability for economic consequences flowing from maritime accidents.
- The physical-damage requirement functions as a practical boundary on foreseeability to avoid indeterminate and open-ended liability in mass-claim maritime incidents.
- Courts may treat the absence of proprietary physical injury as dispositive even when economic harm is foreseeable and widespread.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, reaffirmed that unintentional maritime tort claims for lost profits and similar economic harms are barred unless the claimant proves physical damage to a proprietary interest, favoring a clear, administrable limitation over case-specific remoteness analysis.


La. ex rel. Guste v. M/V Testbank, 752 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1985) (en banc)