## Facts

- An oil tanker, the M/T *Prestige*, sank off Spain’s coast on November 19, 2002 after discharging large quantities of oil into Spain’s waters, causing major environmental and economic harm.
- Spain sued the American Bureau of Shipping and related entities (collectively, ABS), an independent ship-classification society that surveyed and certified vessels’ compliance with classification rules and certain international requirements.
- Spain alleged ABS acted wrongfully—at least recklessly—in classifying, inspecting, and certifying the *Prestige* as fit to carry oil, and sought over $1 billion in compensatory damages plus punitive damages.
- The *Prestige* was owned by a Liberian entity, registered in the Bahamas, and flew the Bahamian flag.
- The vessel carried fuel cargo for a Swiss charterer; after loading cargo in late 2002, the vessel experienced structural failures leading to the spill and sinking.
- ABS contended the casualty could have been avoided but for Spain’s response decisions during the incident.
- ABS moved for summary judgment in the Southern District of New York.

## Issues

1. Whether a ship-classification society owed Spain a tort duty in connection with classification, certification, and inspection services for the *Prestige*.
2. Whether the 1992 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC 1992) barred or limited Spain’s direct claims against ABS through liability channeling to the vessel owner and related protections for certain third parties.
3. Whether Spain produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude ABS acted with the heightened mental state required (knowing or reckless conduct), rather than mere negligence.
4. Whether Spain could show proximate causation between any alleged deficiencies in ABS’s work and the spill-related damages claimed.

## Decision

- The court granted ABS’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Spain’s action.
- The court concluded Spain’s claims were foreclosed by the governing liability regime and, in any event, Spain failed to produce evidence sufficient to support a finding of recklessness.
- The court treated causation as an additional barrier on this record, including ABS’s argument that Spain’s incident-response decisions broke or undermined the causal chain.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate when the record would not allow a reasonable factfinder to find for the nonmovant on elements requiring more than speculation, including heightened fault standards.
- CLC 1992 imposes strict but limited liability on the vessel owner for pollution damage and channels claims away from specified third parties, permitting direct recovery against such third parties only in narrow circumstances requiring elevated fault (such as intentional or reckless conduct).
- In maritime tort contexts, “recklessness” requires proof of conscious disregard of a known or obvious high risk; evidence consistent with negligence or imperfect professional performance does not suffice.
- Where an international liability regime governs pollution damage in a signatory’s territory, domestic tort theories may not be used to circumvent the regime’s channeling and limitation structure.

## Conclusion

The court entered judgment for ABS because Spain’s direct tort claims conflicted with the CLC 1992 channeling structure and, regardless, the evidentiary record did not support a finding that ABS acted with the knowing or reckless disregard required to impose liability for the *Prestige* spill.


Reino de España v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, Inc., 729 F. Supp. 2d 635 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)