## Facts

- The tanker M/T Limar, owned by Limar Shipping Ltd. and operated by OMI Corp., entered Boston Harbor on March 11, 1996 under the navigation of a compulsory harbor pilot.
- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintains Boston Harbor’s inbound and outbound channels and conducts periodic hydrographic surveys to determine depths and detect shoaling or debris.
- Survey information was communicated through government notices and reports and was reflected in official nautical charts.
- NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey produced and distributed the official chart used for the voyage, including NOAA Chart 13272.
- The vessel grounded, and plaintiffs alleged the outbound channel contained an uncharted shoal or a shallower-than-depicted area.
- Plaintiffs sued the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act (and also pleaded the Public Vessels Act), alleging negligent surveying and charting and breach of warranty based on inaccurate depth depiction.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the United States, holding the claims were barred by an implied discretionary function exception under the SIAA.

## Issues

1. Whether the Suits in Admiralty Act contains an implied discretionary function exception that preserves sovereign immunity for discretionary governmental functions.
2. Whether the Army Corps’ surveying-related decisions and NOAA’s chart-making decisions fall within that discretionary function exception, barring liability for the grounding.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States.
- The court held the SIAA contains an implied discretionary function exception analogous to the Federal Tort Claims Act doctrine.
- The court held the challenged surveying, reporting, and charting decisions involved judgment and policy considerations and therefore were immune.
- Because the conduct alleged fell within the exception and no specific mandatory directive was shown to have been violated, sovereign immunity was not waived and the suit could not proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Waivers of federal sovereign immunity are strictly construed; courts may recognize limits on waiver to avoid imposing liability for policy-based governmental decisions.
- The SIAA includes an implied discretionary function exception, evaluated under the FTCA framework: immunity applies when (1) the conduct involves judgment or choice and (2) the judgment is of the kind grounded in public policy considerations.
- Decisions concerning hydrographic surveying and channel maintenance—such as how, when, and where to survey and how to allocate limited resources—are discretionary when not governed by a specific, mandatory directive.
- Decisions in producing official nautical charts—such as which survey data to use, how to depict depth information, and when to update charts—are discretionary and protected when they entail technical and resource tradeoffs susceptible to policy analysis.
- Plaintiffs cannot avoid the discretionary function bar by re-labeling immune discretionary conduct as negligence or breach of warranty.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that the Suits in Admiralty Act implicitly preserves sovereign immunity for discretionary governmental functions and that federal surveying and nautical charting judgments challenged in connection with the M/T Limar grounding fell within that protection, requiring judgment for the United States.


Limar Shipping Ltd. & OMI Corp. v. United States, 324 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003)