Currault et al v. American River Transportation Company, LLC

Filing 43

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that there be judgment in favor of Salvage Plaintiffs, Capt. Nicholas Currault, Andr Currault, Troy Currault, Lower River Ship Service, LLC, and Capt. Sidney Freeman, and against defendant , American River Transportation Company, LLC, on Salvage Plaintiffs' claim for a salvage award in the amount of $3,761,500.00. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest on their award in the amount of 5% ; from the date of judicial demand by the Salvage Plaintiffs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Salvage Plaintiffs shall have ten (10) business days from the date of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to provide the Court with a proposed Fina l Judgment that is commensurate with the Courts Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Salvage Plaintiffs shall send the proposed Final Judgment to the Court's email address, [e-mail]. Signed by Judge Wendy B Vitter on 6/14/2024.(mmv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NICHOLAS CURRAULT, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 23-2542

AMERICAN RIVER TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY, LLC

SECTION: D (4)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I.

INTRODUCTION
This case involves a claim for salvage pursuant to general maritime law and

the International Convention on Salvage, 1989 (the “Salvage Convention”) arising
from a breakaway incident that occurred after Hurricane Ida made landfall in
Louisiana on August 29, 2021. This litigation began in August 2022 when Crescent
Ship Service, Inc., its insurers, and Lower River Ship Service, LLC (“Lower River”)
filed three separate lawsuits for property damage allegedly caused by barges that
broke away from American River Transportation Company, LLC’s (“ARTCO’s”) fleet
on the Mississippi River after Hurricane Ida made landfall in Louisiana.1 The three
cases were subsequently consolidated in September 2022 at the request of Crescent
Ship Service, Inc.2 In July 2023, Captain Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, André
Currault, Captain Sidney Freeman, and Lower River (collectively, the “Salvage
Plaintiffs”) filed a Verified Marine Salvage Complaint against ARTCO d/b/a ARTCO

See, Civ. A. No. 22-2874, Ascot Ins. Co., et al. v. American River Transportation Company, LLC (E.D.
La.) (hereafter, the “Ascot matter”); Civ. A. No. 22-2966, Crescent Ship Service, Inc. v. American River
Transportation Co., LLC, et al. (E.D. La.) (hereafter, the “Crescent Ship matter”); Civ. A. No. 22-2979,
Lower River Ship Service, LLC v. American River Transportation Co., LLC, et al. (E.D. La.) (hereafter,
the “Lower River matter”).
2 See, R. Doc. 10 in the Crescent Ship matter and R. Doc. 8 in the Ascot matter.
1

1

Fleeting Services, in personam, and 38 ARTCO barges and their cargo, in rem,
seeking a marine salvage award for voluntarily and successfully rescuing thirty-eight
(38) ARTCO barges from marine peril when the barges broke away from ARTCO’s
fleet as a result of Hurricane Ida.3 At ARTCO’s request, the salvage claim was
consolidated with the property damage claims in September 2023.4
On March 12, 2024, with the assistance of the assigned United States
Magistrate Judge, the parties reached a settlement as to the property damage
claims.5 Thus, the only remaining claim before the Court is the marine salvage claim
brought by the Salvage Plaintiffs against ARTCO.6 The two issues to be resolved by
this Court are straightforward: (1) whether the Salvage Plaintiffs are entitled to a
salvage award under general maritime law and, if so, (2) the amount of the salvage
award under the Salvage Convention.7
This matter was tried before the Court without a jury on April 22, 2024 through
April 24, 2024.8 The Court has carefully considered the testimony of all of the
witnesses and the exhibits entered into evidence during the trial, as well as the record
in this matter. Pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court
enters the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. To the extent that any

R. Doc. 1.
R. Docs. 77 & 102 in the Ascot matter.
5 R. Doc. 136 in the Ascot matter.
6 Accordingly, any references to record documents will be references to Civil Action No. 23-2542, unless
specified otherwise.
7 The Salvage Plaintiffs have agreed to resolve the division of any salvage award, if awarded by the
Court, amicably between themselves. ARTCO raised no objection to the Salvage Plaintiffs’ agreement
if the Court determines that each Salvage Plaintiff has carried its burden of proof in the trial. See, R.
Docs. 24 and 25.
8 R. Docs. 39, 40, & 41.
3
4

2

finding of fact may be construed as a conclusion of law, the Court hereby adopts it as
such. To the extent any conclusion of law may be construed as a finding of fact, the
Court hereby adopts it as such.
II.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all relevant times, American River Transportation Company, LLC
(“ARTCO”) owned and operated eleven barge fleeting facilities on both sides of
the Lower Mississippi River, from approximately Mile Markers 115 through
118, including Flowers Fleet, Upper Kenner Bend Fleet, Lower Kenner Bend
Fleet, Tulane Fleet, and Condo Fleet.9 ARTCO also owns “boats” that were not
present in its fleet on August 29, 2021.10
2. The ARTCO Tulane Fleet is the upper East Bank fleet in the area, while the
ARTCO Flowers Fleet is the barge fleet below Tulane Fleet on the East Bank.11
The ARTCO Upper Kenner Bend Fleet is the upper West Bank fleet in the
area, the ARTCO Condo Fleet is located right below the Upper Kenner Bend
Fleet on the West Bank, and the Lower Kenner Bend Fleet is located below the
Condo Fleet on the West Bank.12
3. ARTCO has many assets and entities on the lower Mississippi River, including
a stevedoring asset used to move fertilizer and bulk commodities from vessels
via crane barges, a wash dock, a fully functional barge facility, repair facility,

R. Doc. 24 at p. 15 (Uncontested Material Fact No. 5); Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault,
Joseph Meerman, and Brent Beockmann.
10 R. Doc. 35 at p. 6, ¶ 32 & p. 11, ¶ 54; Trial Testimony of Joseph Meerman.
11 R. Doc. 36 at ¶¶ 11-12; Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault.
12 R. Doc. 36 at ¶¶ 13-15; Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault.
9

3

and shipyard.13 ARTCO also has “a marine side,” where it fleets, stores, and
operates boats and barges.14
4. The following 23 barges were within the care, custody, and control of ARTCO’s
fleets at the time Hurricane Ida made landfall in Louisiana on August 29, 2021:
CBC 1700, ART 35143, XL 765 Spar Barge, ART 1418 L, GOPV 5L, PB 2228,
PB 2230, ART 960B, ART 9012B, ART 24024, ART 35065B, ART 35179, ART
35635, ART 44240, ART 45182, ART 45194, CBC 1352, ART 9028, ART 45101,
ART 44350, ART 35276, ART 35534, and ART 44174.15
5. Plaintiff, Lower River, is co-owned by plaintiffs, Capt. Nicholas Currault and
his father, Troy Currault.16 Lower River owns and operates a vessel fleeting
facility at or near mile marker 115 on the East Bank of the Lower Mississippi
River, in an area downriver of ARTCO’s fleets.17 Lower River owns several
barges and vessels at the facility including, but not limited to, the M/V SAINT
CHARLES and the M/V SHELL FUELER.18
6. Lower River provides various services to the marine industry, including but
not limited to salvage, emergency anchor retrieval, most, if not all, marine

Trial Testimony of Brent Beockmann.
Id.
15 R. Doc. 24 at p. 15 (Uncontested Material Fact No. 7); Trial Testimony of Joseph Meerman, Artco’s
Commercial Manager in the Gulf. In an email sent shortly after Hurricane Ida hit, Meerman identified
the last barge in this list as “ART 44194,” but he testified at trial that it was the hopper barge, ART
44174, that was one of the breakaway barges that ended up below the Flowers Fleet. See, Trial
Testimony of Joseph Meerman; Trial Exhibit 35-0005. Andrew Minster, an expert in the field of
marine surveying and appraisal, also testified that he could not locate “ART 44194” in ARTCO’s
extensive database, but said that he was able to locate “ART 44174” and he assumed that it was a
typographical error. Trial Testimony of Andrew Minster.
16 R. Doc. 24 at p. 15 (Uncontested Material Fact No. 3).
17 R. Doc. 24 at p. 15 (Uncontested Material Fact No. 2); R. Doc. 36 at ¶ 6; Trial Testimony of Capt.
Nicholas Currault.
18 R. Doc. 24 at p. 15, ¶ 2; R. Doc. 36 at ¶ 9.
13
14

4

repair or construction needs, ship dunnage removal, midstream slop removal,
and midstream fresh water delivery.19
7. Hurricane Ida made landfall in Louisiana on August 29, 2021.20
8. At the time of Hurricane Ida, plaintiff Nicholas Currault was the captain of
the M/V SHELL FUELER and plaintiff André Currault was a deckhand aboard
the vessel.21 Both were employed by Lower River.22 André Currault is the
brother of Capt. Nicholas Currault and both Nicholas and André are the sons
of Troy Currault.23
9. Captain Nicholas Currault is a licensed captain, tankerman, crane operator,
foreman, and engineer who, along with his father, owns and works in the
family business, Lower River, and holds Coast Guard licenses as a Master
Captain, Tankerman, and Master of Towing.24
10. André Currault worked for Marquette Transportation as a deckhand from
2018 to 2020, and testified that he has worked with his father, Troy, and
brother, Nicholas, at Lower River for about two years.25
11. Troy Currault testified that he has been working on the Mississippi River since
1982.26

R. Doc. 36 at ¶ 6.
R. Doc. 24 at p. 15 (Uncontested Material Fact No. 1).
21 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault.
22 R. Doc. 35 at p. 7, ¶ 36; R. Doc. 36 at p. 5, ¶¶ 3-4; Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault; Trial
Exhibit 146.
23 R. Doc. 35 at p. 7, ¶ 36; Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault and Troy Currault.
24 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault.
25 Deposition and Trial Testimony of André Currault, Trial Exhibit 146.
26 Trial Testimony of Troy Currault.
19
20

5

12. Plaintiff, Captain Sidney Freeman, who holds a 100-ton Master Captain’s
Coast Guard license, is a dispatcher for Port Ship Service, Inc. (“Port Ship”).27
13. When Hurricane Ida hit Louisiana on August 29, 2021, ARTCO had over 900
vessels in the lower Mississippi River, and over 500 barges in ARTCO’s fleets
were located above Lower River’s fleet facility.28
14. During Hurricane Ida, Capt. Nicholas Currault, André Currault, and Capt.
Sidney Freeman were aboard the M/V SHELL FUELER.

Capt. Nicholas

Currault and André Currault were monitoring the Lower River fleet,29 while
Capt. Freeman was monitoring the Port Ship crew boats that were moored to
the Port Ship dock. Troy Currault was aboard the M/V SAINT CHARLES
during this time, also monitoring the Lower River fleet. 30 Troy Currault and
the M/V SAINT CHARLES were stationed approximately 180 feet downriver
from Capt. Nicholas Currault and the M/V SHELL FUELER.31
15. The Curraults stayed with their vessels during the hurricane to tend to their
moorings and to make any necessary adjustments during the weather event.32
16. There were no ARTCO personnel within ARTCO’s fleets during the storm.33
ARTCO contracted with third parties to provide fleet boats during the storm,

R. Doc. 35 at p. 7, ¶ 36; R. Doc. 36 at p. 5, ¶ 5; Trial Testimony of Capt. Sidney Freeman.
Trial Testimony of Joseph Meerman and Capt. Nicholas Currault.
29 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault and Capt. Sidney Freeman.
30 Trial Testimony of Troy Currault, Capt. Nicholas Currault, and Capt. Sidney Freeman.
31 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault and Troy Currault; Trial Exhibit 2A.
32 Trial Exhibit 146 at p. 15, André Currault Deposition Designations; Trial Testimony of Capt.
Nicholas Currault and Troy Currault.
33 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, and Joseph Meerman.
27
28

6

but none of those fleet boats were willing to provide fleeting services until
daybreak on August 30, 2021.34
17. Sometime in the evening of August 29, 2021, after Hurricane Ida made landfall
in Louisiana, several barges that were in ARTCO’s fleet broke away and began
to make their way downriver toward the Lower River facility.35 The following
23 barges, which were in the care, custody and control of ARTCO's fleets, broke
away: CBC 1700, ART 35143, XL 765 Spar Barge, ART 1418 L, GOPV 5L, PB
2228, PB 2230, ART 960B, ART 9012B, ART 24024, ART 35065B, ART 35179,
ART35635, ART 44240, ART 45182, ART 45194, CBC 1352, ART 9028, ART
45101, ART 44350, ART 35276, ART 35534, and ART 44174.36
18. Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, and Capt. Sidney Freeman first
became aware of the breakaway barges at around 10 p.m. on August 29, 2021,
when the M/V SHELL FUELER was struck on its stern by a loaded ARTCO
barge that was floating downriver.37 The impact broke both of the face wires
on the M/V SHELL FUELER, as well as a head line, and caused the M/V
SHELL FUELER to slam into the dock, which broke the rudders and killed
one of the two generators that provided power to the boat.38 That impact also
caused interior damage to the M/V SHELL FUELER, including causing the

Trial Testimony of Joseph Meerman, Kenny Billiot, Sr., and Kenny Billiot, Jr.
R. Doc. 35 at ¶ 41.
36 R. Doc. 24 at p. 15 (Uncontested Material Fact No. 7); Trial Testimony of Joseph Meerman.
37 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, and Capt. Sidney Freeman.
38 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault and Capt. Sidney Freeman; Trial Exhibit 146 at pp. 1113.
34
35

7

refrigerator that was mounted to the wall to break off and causing the
wheelhouse and galley to be “trashed.”39
19. After recovering from the impact of the ARTCO barge, Capt. Nicholas Currault
looked upriver and saw more breakaway barges heading in his direction.40
20. About an hour later, at approximately 11:18 p.m., another loaded breakaway
barge, ART 45194, a “loaded hopper” or regulated dry cargo barge, struck the
M/V SAINT CHARLES and got stuck underneath it for about 15 to 20 minutes,
causing damage to the bottom of the boat, before going behind a nearby ferry.41
21. Approximately 15 minutes later, three ARTCO breakaway barges – an empty
barge and two loaded barges – approached the Lower River dock.

Capt.

Nicholas Currault used the M/V SHELL FUELER’s wheel wash to push the
barges away from the M/V SHELL FUELER in order to prevent the breakaway
barges from colliding with the barges in the Lower River fleet.42
22. Capt. Nicholas Currault, André Currault, and Capt. Sidney Freeman
continued to use the M/V SHELL FUELER’s wheel wash to slow down the 23
ARTCO breakaway barges and to push or “beach them” in the mud on the bank
of the Mississippi River, below or past Lower River’s property.43
23. Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, Capt. Sidney Freeman, and André
Currault described Capt. Nicholas Currault’s actions as “catching” the

Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault and Capt. Sidney Freeman; Trial Exhibit 146 at pp. 1113.
40 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault.
41 Id.; Trial Exhibits 2 and 2A.
42 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault and Troy Currault.
43 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, and Capt. Sidney Freeman; Trial
Exhibits 3, 1-0005, & 5.
39

8

breakaway barges and running them aground to create “dams,” or holding
places, that acted as anchors to hold the breakaway barges in place on the
beach.44
24. Some of the breakaway barges that Capt. Nicholas Currault and his crew saved
during this time period were actively sinking or at serious risk of sinking,
including the ART 35143, the GOPV 5B, and the ART 24024.45
25. Capt. Nicholas Currault and his crew aboard the M/V SHELL FUELER
continued to beach the ARTCO breakaway barges for about seven hours, from
approximately 11:00 p.m. on August 29, 2021 until 6:00 a.m. on August 30,
2021.46
26. Throughout the night and into the morning hours, Capt. Nicholas Currault
and his crew aboard the M/V SHELL FUELER caught and beached many
ARTCO breakaway barges, including the 23 barges that the parties agree were
in the care, custody, and control of ARTCO’s fleets at the time Hurricane Ida
hit.47 Sometime after daybreak, the number of breakaway barges floating
downriver slowed down and Capt. Nicholas Currault and his crew aboard the
M/V SHELL FUELER began using mooring lines to secure ARTCO barges at
Lower River’s dock.48

Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, and Capt. Sidney Freeman; Trial Exhibit
146 at pp. 20-21; Trial Exhibit 5.
45 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault and Capt. Sidney Freeman; Trial Exhs. 24-0001-24-0007
& 26-0001-26-0007.
46 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault and Troy Currault; Trial Exhibit 5.
47 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, and Joseph Meerman; R. Doc. 24 at p.
15 (Uncontested Material Fact No. 7); Trial Exhibit 8.
48 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, and Capt. Sidney Freeman; Trial
Exhibits 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, & 146 at p. 26.
44

9

27. Troy Currault remained on the M/V SAINT CHARLES throughout the
evening, assisting the salvage operation throughout the evening by watching
for breakaway barges, radioing the M/V SHELL FUELER and being the
“coach” of the salvage operation.49 It was Troy Currault’s suggestion that the
crew of the M/V SHELL FUELER push the breakaway barges onto the bank
and make them “stick there.”50
28. During the salvage operation, Capt. Sidney Freeman acted as lookout aboard
the M/V SHELL FUELER in the wheelhouse and out on the deck and advised
of oncoming breakaway barges throughout the evening.51

Capt. Freeman

testified that the best way he could explain what he was feeling was to “stick
your hand out the window on the interstate that’s what it felt like on the deck
the whole time being stung by rain the whole time.”52 Capt. Freeman testified
that his role during the evening was to make certain that there were no wires
or rope hanging off the barges that could get entangled with their vessel, the
M/V SHELL FUELER, which would cause them to be “dead in the water, we
could die, we could flip [if] we’re stuck to the barges, flips us over. We go where
the barge goes.”53 Capt. Freeman also testified that he assisted in mooring
ARTCO’s barges in front of the dock at Lower River and Port Ship Service that
came loose later that morning.54

Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, and Capt. Sidney Freeman.
Id.
51 Id.
52 Trial Testimony of Capt. Sidney Freeman.
53 Id.
54 Id.
49
50

10

29. André Currault testified that he was tending to the lines and the vessel during
the entire evening until daylight while the crew was “collecting or catching”
the ARTCO breakaway barges.55 His testimony further corroborates that
ARTCO barges struck both the M/V SHELL FUELER and the M/V SAINT
CHARLES.56
30. The Court found Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, and Capt. Sidney
Freeman extremely credible in their demeanor and their testimony, and
further found that each witness’s testimony was supported by extrinsic
evidence.

Troy Currault’s sincerity was particularly credible when he

emotionally testified that he was afraid on that evening of “the conditions, my
sons getting hurt, Sidney getting hurt, possibly dying,” and further when he
testified that he helped direct the salvage operation because “He was a
mariner. A mariner does correct for everyone whether it’s his barge, a ship’s
barge, it does not matter. Everybody is the same level. Your equipment is
their equipment its all the same. Try to save it.”57
31. The trial testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, and Capt.
Sidney Freeman is corroborated by ARTCO’s contract employees, Captains
Kenny Billiot, Sr. and Kenny Billiot, Jr., who both testified that they saw at
least one ARTCO breakaway barge and that neither took steps to attempt
retrieval because of safety concerns.58 Both witnesses further testified that

Id.
Id.
57 Trial Testimony of Troy Currault.
58 Trial Testimony of Capt. Kenny Billiot, Sr. and Capt. Kenny Billiot, Jr.
55
56

11

they received at least one call that evening advising of an ARTCO barge on a
neighbor’s dock and asking for assistance.59 The Court found Captains Kenny
Billiot, Sr. and Kenny Billiot, Jr. credible in their demeanor and their
testimony.
32. ARTCO’s commercial manager for the Gulf of Mexico, Joseph Meerman, also
confirmed that Capt. Kenny Billiot, Sr. had called him the evening of August
29, 2021 to advise that he had seen a barge that had broken free during the
storm.60
33. The trial testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, and Capt.
Sidney Freeman is further corroborated by Captain Frederick “Bubba”
Willhoft, III, the lead captain and managing partner of Crescent Ship Service,
Inc. (“Crescent Ship”). Capt. Willhoft testified that he has been a captain for
over 30 years on the Mississippi River and that Crescent Ship’s property “butts
up right next to” Lower River’s facility.61 Capt. Willhoft further stated that
Capt. Nicholas Currault and Troy Currault have been his competitors for
several years, but that they have gotten to know each other and have become
friends over the years.62 Capt. Willhoft further testified that when Hurricane
Ida hit, he and his crew secured their fleet and intended to ride out the storm
until the fleet was hit by some breakaway barges, which he believes came from

Id.
Trial Testimony of Joseph Meerman.
61 Trial Testimony of Capt. Willhoft.
62 Id.
59
60

12

ARTCO’s fleet.63 At that point, Capt. Willhoft assessed the damages and told
his crew to get off the Crescent Ship barge, so they rode out the storm in their
vehicles in the parking lot of Crescent Ship.64 After a few hours, somewhere
around two or three in the morning, Capt. Willhoft left Crescent Ship and went
next door to check on everyone at Lower River, Port Ship, and Belle Chasse
Marine.65 Capt. Willhoft went to Lower River’s office first, where he saw the
crew from the M/V HIAWATHA, which had abandoned their vessel in the
Mississippi River.66 They told him that Troy Currault and Capt. Nicholas
Currault were still out on their boats, the M/V SAINT CHARLES and the M/V
SHELL FUELER.67

Capt. Willhoft testified that he saw Capt. Nicholas

Currault on the M/V SHELL FUELER “catch” two barges from the middle of
the river and push them aground, and that he saw additional barges on the left
descending bank of the river.68 Capt. Willhoft also testified that the wind was
blowing pretty hard at this point, and estimated that it was in the 40 to 50 mile
per hour range.69 Capt. Willhoft described the weather conditions as “hectic”
for a towboat captain moving barges in the Mississippi River, and said that the
wind speeds made it a dangerous situation.70 The Court found Capt. Willhoft
credible in his demeanor and his testimony.

Id.
Id.
65 Id.
66 Trial Testimony of Capt. Willhoft and Troy Currault.
67 Trial Testimony of Capt. Willhoft.
68 Id.
69 Id.
70 Id.
63
64

13

34. Andrew Minster, who was qualified by the Court as an expert in the field of
marine surveying and appraisal, without objection from ARTCO, testified at
trial that the 23 ARTCO breakaway barges had the following fair market value
on August 29, 2021:
1) The fair market value of the GOPV 5, a loaded, boxed, hopper barge
measuring 200 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $280,000.00;
2) The fair market value of the XL 765, an empty, raked, boxed, spar,
hopper barge measuring 200 feet long by 35 feet wide, was
$100,000.00;
3) The fair market value of the ART 1418, a loaded, boxed, hopper
barge measuring 200 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $308,000.00;
4) The fair market value of the ART 24024, an empty, boxed, hopper
barge measuring 200 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $250,000.00;
5) The fair market value of the ART 35065, an empty, boxed, hopper
barge measuring 200 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $672,000.00;
6) The fair market value of the ART 35143, a loaded, raked, hopper
barge measuring 195 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $640,000.00;
7) The fair market value of the ART 35179, an empty raked hopper
barge measuring 195 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $670,000.00;
8) The fair market value of the ART 35635, an empty, boxed, hopper
barge measuring 200 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $766,500.00;

14

9) The fair market value of the ART 44240, an empty, boxed, hopper
barge measuring 200 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $836,000.00;
10) The fair market value of the ART 44350, a loaded, raked, hopper
barge measuring 195 feet by 35 feet, was $850,000.00;
11) The fair market value of the ART 45101, a loaded, raked, hopper
barge measuring 200 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $770,000.00;
12) The fair market value of the ART 45182, a loaded, raked, hopper
barge measuring 200 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $935,000.00;
13) The fair market value of the ART 45194, an empty, raked, hopper
barge measuring 200 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $1,034,000.00;
14) The fair market value of the PB 2228, an empty, raked hopper barge
measuring 195 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $408,500.00;
15) The fair market value of the PB 2230, an empty, boxed, hopper
barge measuring 200 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $430,000.00;
16) The fair market value of the ART 35276, an empty, boxed, hopper
barge measuring 200 feet long by 35 wide, was $703,000.00;
17) The fair market value of the ART 35534, an empty, raked, hopper
barge measuring 195 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $700,000.00;
18) The fair market value of the CBC 1352, an empty tank barge
measuring 200 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $1,679,000.00;
19) The fair market value of the CBC 1700, an empty raked tank barge
measuring 200 feet long by 54 feet wide, is $2,538,000.00.;

15

20) The fair market value of the ART 9012B, an empty, boxed, tank
barge measuring 200 feet long by 35 feet wide was $1,610,000.00;
21) The fair market value of the ART 9028, an empty, boxed, tank barge
measuring 200 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $1,610,000.00;
22) The fair market value of the ART 960B, an empty, boxed, tank
barge measuring 200 feet long by 35 feet wide, was $437,000.00; and
23) The fair market value of the ART 44174 was $580,000.00.71
35. At trial, the parties stipulated that ARTCO’s expert on valuation, Kyle Smith,
arrived at a valuation opinion on the 23 ARTCO breakaway barges using the
same valuation methodology as Andrew Minster.72
36. The Salvage Plaintiffs had no legal or contractual duty or obligation to ARTCO
with respect to the barges that broke out of ARTCO’s fleet.73
III.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Applicable Law
1. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333,
general maritime law, and the International Convention on Salvage, 1989 (the
“Salvage Convention”).74

Trial Testimony of Andrew Minster; R. Doc. 24 at pp. 16-17 (Uncontested Material Fact Nos. 8-29).
See, R. Doc. 41. As a result of the stipulation, the parties agreed that ARTCO would not call Kyle
Smith to testify at trial.
73 R. Doc. 24 at p. 18 (Uncontested Material Fact No. 30).
74 International Convention on Salvage, April 28, 1989, S. Treaty Doc. No. 102-12, 1953 U.N.T.S. 193
(hereafter, “Salvage Convention”).
71
72

16

2. The Court has determined that, to the extent there is any conflict between
general maritime law principles and the Salvage Convention, the Salvage
Convention will determine the outcome.75
3. The Court finds that the Salvage Plaintiffs have standing to bring a salvage
claim. Troy Currault, André Currault, Capt. Nicholas Currault, and Sidney
Freeman have standing because they participated in the salvage operation.76
Lower River has standing because, “A salving owner is granted a salvage
reward because of the risk and danger to which his property is exposed.” 77
ARTCO does not contest that the Salvage Plaintiffs have standing to bring a
salvage claim.78
B. The Salvage Plaintiffs Are Entitled to a Salvage Award
4. “Salvage is the compensation allowed to persons by whose assistance a ship or
her cargo has been saved, in whole or in part, from impending peril or the sea
. . . . Success is essential to the claim; . . . .”79
5. “Marine salvage is as old and hoary a doctrine as may be found in the Anglo—
American law. Since time immemorial, the mariner who acted voluntarily to
save property from peril on the high seas has been entitled to a reward. This

R. Doc. 38 at pp. 1-3.
Sunglory Maritime Ltd. v. PHI, Inc., 212 F. Supp. 3d 618, 641 (E.D. La. 2016) (quoting Saint Paul
Marine Transp. Corp. v. Cerro Sales Corp., 505 F.2d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 1974)) (quotation marks
omitted).
77 Sunglory, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 639, n.148 (citing The Blackwall, 77 U.S. 1, 13, 19 L.Ed. 870 (1869)).
78 See, R. Doc. 35 at pp. 22-32.
79 The Blackwall, 77 U.S. 1, 12, 19 L.Ed. 870 (1869).
75
76

17

simple rule has been an integral part of maritime commerce in the western
world since the western world was civilized.”80
6. “The doctrine of salvage is settled. ‘A successful salvage claim requires three
proofs: (1) marine peril; (2) voluntary service rendered when not required as
an existing duty or from a special contract; and (3) success in whole or in part
or contribution to the success of the operation.”81
7. “When salvage claims are asserted, the salvor bears the burden of persuasion
regarding salvage value.”82
8. Under the Salvage Convention, a “[s]alvage operation means any act or activity
undertaken to assist a vessel or any other property in danger in navigable
waters or in any other waters whatsoever.”83
9. “The Salvage Convention does not appear to have eliminated the general
maritime law’s requirement that, to succeed on a salvage claim, a plaintiff
must prove three elements: (1) that the property faced a marine peril; (2) that
voluntary service was rendered when not required as an existing duty or from
a special contract; and (3) the salvage attempt succeeded in whole or in part,
or contributed to the success of the operation.”84

Margate Shipping Co. v. JA Orgeron, 143 F.3d 976, 985 (5th Cir. 1998) (footnote omitted).
U.S. v. EX-USS CABOT/DEDALO, 297 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2002), rev’d 297 F.3d 378 (5th Cir.
2002).
82 Allseas Maritime, S.A. v. M/V Mimosa, 812 F.2d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted); R. Doc.
35 at ¶ 70.
83 Salvage Convention, art. 1. See, R. Doc. 35 at ¶ 63; R. Doc. 36 at p. 42, ¶ 13.
84 Sunglory Maritime, Ltd. v. PHI, Inc., 212 F. Supp. 3d 618, 837-38 (E.D. La. 2016) (citing EX-USS
CABOT/DEDALO, 297 F.3d at 381). See, R. Doc. 35 at ¶ 63; R. Doc. 36 at p. 42, ¶ 13.
80
81

18

10. To satisfy the marine peril element, the property must be “in danger.” While
the property need not be in imminent or absolute danger, “The property must
be in danger, either presently or reasonably to be apprehended” if the salvage
services are not rendered.85 “Courts may consider the degree of peril when
determining the amount of the salvage award, but not in assessing whether a
salvage award is warranted.”86 “Without any danger, however, services cannot
be called marine salvage.”87 The party seeking a salvage award bears the
burden of proving that the property faced a marine peril.88
11. To satisfy the voluntariness element, the services must be performed
“voluntarily, while under no legal obligation or compulsion to do so.”89 Indeed,
“even services that are rendered by accident may be considered ‘voluntary’ for
purposes of a salvage claim.”90

Nonetheless, “A salvor obviously will not

receive an award if he loses the property or acts in bad faith.”91 The Salvage
Convention echoes the voluntariness element in Articles 6(1) and 17. Article
6(1) provides that, “This Convention shall apply to any salvage operations save
to the extent that a contract otherwise provides expressly or by implication.”92

Sunglory, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 647-48 (citing authority). R. Doc. 35 at ¶ 63(a); R. Doc. 36 at p. 43, ¶
16.
86 Sunglory, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 647 (citing 3A Benedict on Admiralty § 63).
87 Sunglory, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 648 (citing M/V ANDREW J. BARBERI, 534 F. Supp. 2d 370, 377
(E.D.N.Y. 2008)).
88 Sunglory, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 647 (citing Salvage Convention, art. 1(a)). R. Doc. 35 at ¶ 63(a); R. Doc.
36 at pp. 43-44, ¶ 16.
89 Sunglory, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 650 & 651 (citing EX-USS CABOT/DEDALO, 297 F.3d at 381; 3A
Benedict on Admiralty § 68); R. Doc. 35 at ¶ 63(b); R. Doc. 36 at p. 44, ¶ 18.
90 Sunglory, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 651 (citing B.V. Bureau Wijsmuller v. U.S., 702 F.2d 333, 339 (2d Cir.
1983)) (“Whatever motive impels the true volunteer, be it monetary gain, humanitarian purposes or
merely error, it will not detract from the status accorded him by law.”).
91 Adams v. Unione Mediterranea Di Sicurta, 220 F.3d 659, 675-76 (5th Cir. 2000).
92 Salvage Convention, art. 6(1).
85

19

Article 17 similarly provides that, “No payment is due under the provisions of
this Convention unless the services rendered exceed what can be reasonably
considered as due performance of a contract entered into before the danger
arose.”93
12. To satisfy the third element, success in whole or in part, “[w]hile the distressed
vessel must be saved . . . it is unnecessary that it be saved solely by the one
seeking the salvage award.”94 Thus, while “the rule in salvage cases has
always been that only success is rewarded,” a claimant “need only render some
beneficial service to the distressed vessel that contributed to its relief from
danger.”95
13. The Court finds that the Salvage Plaintiffs, individually and jointly, have
sustained their burden of proving that ARTCO’s 23 breakaway barges faced a
marine peril, since at the time of the salvage efforts, the barges were in danger,
either “presently or reasonably to be apprehended,” of causing significant
injury or damage to themselves and other vessels or facilities as they floated
downstream and away from ARTCO’s fleet. The Court bases this finding in
great part on the testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, Capt.
Sidney Freeman, Captain Kenny Billiot, Sr., Captain Kenny Billiot, Jr., and
Capt. Willhoft, and the Court’s determination that their testimony was both
credible and supported by the evidence. That finding is further supported by

Salvage Convention, art. 17.
In re Iowa Fleeting Service, Inc., 211 F. Supp. 2d 794, 798 (M.D. La. 2002) (citing West Coast Shipping
Brokers Corp., M/V “Cebu I” v. Ferry “CHUCHEQUERO,” 582 F.2d 959, 960 (5th Cir. 1978)).
95 Iowa Fleeting, 211 F. Supp. 2d at 798 (citing West Coast Shipping, 582 F.2d at 960).
93
94

20

the actual damage to the M/V SHELL FUELER when it was first struck by one
of ARTCO’s breakaway barges.96

Additionally, ARTCO’s representative,

Joseph Meerman, testified that he was made aware by a call from Capt. Kenny
Billiot, Sr. on the evening of August 29th that at least one of ARTCO’s barges
had broken away.97

Meerman testified that, “a breakaway barge could

potentially cause problems for any facility.”98 Meerman further testified that
ARTCO settled claims for damage caused by its breakaway barges during
Hurricane Ida with Crescent Ship Services, which supports a finding of marine
peril.99 To the extent ARTCO claims that the weather conditions at the time
of the salvage operation were mild,100 the Court rejects this argument as
unsupported by the evidence. Further, ARTCO’s argument flies in the face of
its own actions. Joseph Meerman, ARTCO’s commercial manager in the Gulf
of Mexico, testified that ARTCO ordered its crew off of its fleet due to the
impending weather conditions caused by Hurricane Ida.101
14. The Court likewise finds that each Salvage Plaintiff, individually, has carried
his burden of proving that he rendered voluntary service in salvaging the
breakaway barges. The parties agree that there was no legal or contractual
duty or obligation between the Salvage Plaintiffs and ARTCO with respect to
the barges that broke out of ARTCO’s fleets.102 Thus, it is undisputed that this

The damage to the M/V SHELL FUELER was described in Finding of Fact No. 15 herein.
Trial Testimony of Joseph Meerman.
98 Id.
99 Id.
100 R. Doc. 35 at ¶ 67.
101 Trial Testimony of Joseph Meerman.
102 R. Doc. 24 at p. 18, ¶ 30 (Uncontested Material Fact No. 30).
96
97

21

element is met. To the extent ARTCO argues the Salvage Plaintiffs were
simply trying to protect their own property, the evidence adduced at trial
undercuts that argument. The Court credits the testimony of Capt. Nicholas
Currault, Troy Currault, Capt. Sidney Freeman, and Capt. Willhoft, who
testified that the Salvage Plaintiffs slowed, caught, and beached ARTCO’s
breakaway barges below Lower River’s facility—after the barges no longer
posed a threat to Lower River’s facility.103 The photographic evidence from
that evening also supports this testimony, as it shows ARTCO’s barges beached
below Lower River’s facility.104 Capt. Willhoft’s testimony corroborated both
the testimony of the Curraults and the photographic evidence, as he testified
that when he saw Capt. Nicholas Currault catch and beach two ARTCO
breakaway barges, the barges were not heading toward Lower River’s
property.105 To the extent that ARTCO has argued that a finding of intent is
necessary in order for a court to make a finding of salvage,106 which argument
the Court does not find supported by the law, the Court finds these witnesses’
testimony and the trial evidence supports a finding that the Salvage Plaintiffs’
intent went beyond protection of Lower River's property and included an intent
to save non-Lower River property as well.107 The Court found these witnesses’
testimony particularly credible on the issue of whether the Salvage Plaintiffs’

Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, and Capt. Sidney Freeman.
Trial Exhibit 5.
105 Trial Testimony of Capt. Willhoft.
106 R. Doc. 35 at pp. 13-18.
107 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, and Capt. Sidney Freeman.
103
104

22

actions were voluntary and whether the Salvage Plaintiffs’ intent went beyond
protecting their own property.
15. Finally, the Court finds that the Salvage Plaintiffs, individually and jointly,
have

shown

that

they

were

successful

in

slowing,

catching,

and

beaching/mooring 23 of the barges that broke away from ARTCO’s fleet. Their
actions together, and each plaintiff’s individual actions, were successful
because the Salvage Plaintiffs prevented the breakaway barges from capsizing,
sinking, damaging themselves, and damaging neighboring property.

The

Court relies on the testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault and Troy Currault to
support this finding, testimony which the Court finds corroborated by the
testimony of Capt. Kenny Billiot, Sr., Capt. Kenny Billiot, Jr., and Capt.
Willhoft.
16. The Court rejects ARTCO’s argument that the salvage operation was not a
success since some of ARTCO’s barges capsized or sank.108
17. As set forth above, the Court finds that each Salvage Plaintiff has satisfied his
burden of proving all three elements of a salvage claim and, therefore, each
Salvage Plaintiff, individually, is entitled to a salvage award.109

R. Doc. 35 at ¶¶ 65-66.
The Salvage Plaintiffs have agreed to resolve the division of any salvage award, if awarded by the
Court, amicably between themselves. ARTCO raised no objection to the Salvage Plaintiffs’ agreement
if the Court determines that each Salvage Plaintiff has carried its burden of proof in the trial. See, R.
Docs. 24 and 25.
108
109

23

C. The Salvage Convention Factors
18. “‘A salvage award is decreed in a court of admiralty not in the way of mere
quantum meruit for work and labor performed, but as a bounty given on
grounds of public policy, to ensure safety of property and life at sea; to promote
commerce and trade; to save and restore property to its owners; to induce and
encourage others to risk life and limb, if need be, in the interest of saving
distressed property; and to eliminate any temptation on the part of the
rescuers to despoil the saved property.’

Accordingly, the public policy of

salvage awards is to overcome any unwillingness on the part of salvors to
assume additional labor and risks in the interest of saving life and property on
navigable waters. Thus, all who render beneficial aid and who are not legally
barred should be entitled to a salvage reward.”110
19. “The appropriate salvage award in a particular case is highly circumstantial
and generally ‘should not be based upon fixed percentages of the value of the
salved property or upon comparisons to percentages from previous awards.’”111
“In fixing the amount of a salvage award, the Court, in its sound discretion,
must take into consideration all of the facts and circumstances of the salvage
operation, weigh and consider them, stress some and discount others, and
ultimately arrive at a final figure.”112 “The case law stresses that the Court’s

Sunglory Maritime, Ltd. v. PHI, Inc., 212 F. Supp. 3d 618, 651 (E.D. La. 2016) (quoting 3A Benedict
on Admiralty § 232 & citing Lancaster v. Smith, 330 F. Supp. 65 (S.D. Ala. 1971); The Missouri, 17 F.
Cas. 484 (D. Mass. 1854); The Rio Grande, 22 F. 914 (S.D.N.Y. 1885); The Arizonan, 144 F. 81 (2d Cir.
1906)).
111 Sunglory, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 652 n.252 (citing Jones v. Sea Tow Servs. Freeport N.Y. Inc., 30 F.3d
360, 364 (2d Cir. 1994)).
112 Sunglory, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 652.
110

24

analysis is an equitable one, meant to consider the unique facts and
circumstances of each case and avoid rigid yardsticks, overreliance on
precedent, which is rarely if ever on all-fours with the facts of a particular case,
or rote application of rule-of-thumb percentages of the value of salved
property.”113
20. Under general maritime law, courts have long utilized a six-factor test laid out
by the Supreme Court in The Blackwall114 to determine the amount of a
salvage award, wherein courts consider:
1. the labor expended by the salvors in rendering the salvage service;
2. the promptitude, skill, and energy displayed in rendering the
service and saving the property;
3. the value of the property employed by the salvors in rendering the
service, and the danger to which such property was exposed;
4. the risk incurred by the salvors in securing the property from the
impending peril;
5. the value of the property saved; and
6. the degree of danger from which the property was rescued.
21. In evaluating the Blackwall factors, the Fifth Circuit has advised courts “to
use the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth factor to arrive at a percentage to
be applied to the fifth factor, salved value, for purposes of establishing the
award.”115 The Fifth Circuit further held that, “In setting the percentage, some
care should of course be taken to stay within the bounds of historical practice,
. . . and to account for all of the relevant circumstances of the specific salvage
at issue. The predominant consideration, however, should always be to arrive

Id. (citing authority).
77 U.S. 1, 19 L.Ed. 870 (1869).
115 Margate Shipping Co. v. M/V JA Orgeron, 143 F.3d 976, 989 (5th Cir. 1998). See, Sunglory, 212 F.
Supp. 3d at 652 (citing Margate, 143 F.3d at 989).
113
114

25

at an award that reasonably reflects the price upon which the parties would
have agreed.”116
22. The Fifth Circuit has held that, “the law must provide for a proper and
reasonable salvage award, one that gives neither the salvor too little incentive
to do the salvage properly, nor the salvee too little reason to care if his property
is saved.”117 The court went on to say, “By far the most important of these
considerations, however, will be the cost to potential salvors of performing the
service and the benefit to the salvee of it being performed . . . .”118
23. The Salvage Convention states that,
The reward shall be fixed with a view to encouraging salvage operations,
taking into account the following criteria without regard to the order in
which they are presented below:
1. The salved value of the vessel or other property;
2. The skill and efforts of the salvors in preventing or minimizing
damage to the environment;
3. The measure of success obtained by the salvor;
4. The nature and degree of the danger;
5. The skill and efforts of the salvors in salving the vessel, other
property and life;
6. The time used and expenses and losses incurred by the salvors;
7. The risk of liability and other risks run by the salvors or their
equipment;
8. The promptness of the services rendered;
9. The availability and use of vessels or other equipment intended
for salvage operations;
10. The state of readiness and efficiency of the salvor’s equipment
and the value thereof.119

Margate, 143 F.3d at 989. See, Sunglory, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 652 (citing Margate, 143 F.3d at 989).
Margate, 143 F.3d at 986 (citation omitted).
118 Id.
119 Salvage Convention, art. 13(1).
116
117

26

24. The Salvage Convention further specifies that, “The rewards, exclusive of any
interest and recoverable legal costs that may be payable thereon, shall not
exceed the salved value of the vessel and other property.”120
25. “At least two district courts that have considered salvage claims pursuant to
the Salvage Convention have concluded that the ‘six Blackwall factors were
essentially adopted, although not in identical language, by the 1989 Salvage
Convention.’”121
26. The Court recognizes, and the parties have agreed, that if the Salvage
Plaintiffs are unable to prove at trial that they helped prevent or minimize
damage to the environment, as required under the Salvage Convention, the
outcome of the case will be the same as if general maritime law had applied.122
27. Regarding the first Salvage Convention factor, the salved value of the vessel
or property, the Fifth Circuit has held that, “Generally, the value of property
for salvage purposes is its market value as salved.”123 The Fifth Circuit further
held that when there is no market for the salved property, the most appropriate
measure of value may be the “replacement cost.”124 Here, the evidence adduced
at trial, through the Salvage Plaintiffs’ expert surveyor, Andrew Minster, is
that the 23 barges that broke away from ARTCO’s fleet and were salvaged by
the Salvage Plaintiffs had a fair market value on August 29, 2021 of

Id. at art. 13(3).
Sunglory, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 653 (quoting DOROTHY J v. City of New York, 749 F. Supp. 2d 50, 70
(E.D.N.Y. 2010) & citing In re Mielke, Civ. A. No. 10-13519, 2013 WL 5913681, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Nov.
1, 2013) (Zatkoff, J.)).
122 R. Doc. 38 at pp. 2-3.
123 Margate Shipping Co. v. M/V JA Orgeron, 143 F.3d 976, 990 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing authority).
124 Id. (citing authority).
120
121

27

$18,807,500.00.125

While the Salvage Plaintiffs claim that they saved an

additional 15 unidentified ARTCO barges each worth approximately
$817,719.39,126 the Salvage Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of identifying
the additional salved barges.
28. Turning to the second Salvage Convention factor, the Court finds that the
Salvage Plaintiffs presented minimal evidence beyond speculation that, but for
their salvage efforts, the 23 ARTCO breakaway barges would have caused
damage to the environment. Article 1(d) of the Salvage Convention defines
“damage to the environment” as a “substantial physical damage to human
health or to marine life or resources in coastal or inland waters or areas
adjacent thereto, caused by pollution, contamination, fire, explosion or similar
major accidents.”127
a. Captain Michael Berry, who was qualified by the Court as an expert in
towboat and fleet boat navigation safety and operations, without
objection by ARTCO, testified that the Salvage Plaintiffs prevented
pollution and damage by stopping the breakaway barges from going
downriver and potentially causing damage to other facilities and
fleets.128 While the Court found Capt. Berry credible, Capt. Berry did
not testify regarding the specific damage or pollution that may have
been prevented through the actions of the Salvage Plaintiffs. Instead,

Trial Testimony of Andrew Minster. See, R. Doc. 36 at p. 9, ¶ 19 – p.17, ¶ 43.
R. Doc. 36 at p. 51, ¶ 40.
127 R. Doc. 35 at ¶ 82; R. Doc. 36 at p. 53, ¶ 45.
128 Trial Testimony of Capt. Michael Berry.
125
126

28

he merely testified that a barge breakaway can cause other barge
breakaways, which can cause a domino effect, without elaborating on
the specific damage that was prevented by the Salvage Plaintiffs.129
b. At trial, Capt. Nicholas Currault and Capt. Kenny Billiot, Sr. both
testified that Cornerstone chemical facility was located across the
Mississippi River from Lower River’s facility, and Joseph Meerman
testified that breakaway barges can cause problems for any river
facility, including the Cornerstone chemical facility.130 There was no
evidence at trial to suggest that any of the breakaway barges would have
hit the Cornerstone chemical facility if the Salvage Plaintiffs had not
intervened.
c. Capt. Nicholas Currault also testified that Magnolia Fleet is a red flag
fleet, meaning that it has the capacity to dock petroleum barges and
“dangerous cargo.”131 Capt. Kenny Billiot, Sr. likewise testified that the
Magnolia Fleet is usually all chemical barges.132 While Capt. Kenny
Billiot, Sr. testified that there could have been a chemical spill if any of
the breakaway barges had ended up in the Magnolia fleet, he also
testified that none of the breakaway barges ended up in the Magnolia
Fleet.133

Id.
Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Capt. Kenny Billiot, Sr., and Joseph Meerman.
131 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault.
132 Trial Testimony of Capt. Kenny Billiot, Sr.
133 Trial Testimony of Capt. Kenny Billiot, Sr.
129
130

29

d. The Court finds that the evidence presented by the Salvage Plaintiffs
regarding the environmental damage that was allegedly prevented by
their salvage operation is too speculative to support a higher salvage
award in this case.
29. As to the third factor, the measure of success obtained, the Court finds that the
assistance rendered by the Salvage Plaintiffs, in promptly averting the
downriver movement, destruction, and sinking of ARTCO’s 23 breakaway
barges, was highly successful and supports a substantial salvage award.134 In
measuring the success obtained by the salvor, courts analyze what assistance
the salvors provided.135 In Allseas Mar., S.A. v. M/V Mimosa, the Fifth Circuit
agreed with the Ninth Circuit that, “a successful action should be viewed as an
entirety, not on an-act-by-act basis.

To dissect a multifaceted-salvage

operation and decide how risky and how successful each particular effort was
would entail unreasonable speculation by the courts.”136 In measuring the
success obtained, courts can consider the benefit third parties obtained from
the salvage operation.137
a. Here, the Court finds that the Salvage Plaintiffs were highly successful
in rendering assistance, considering they were the only individuals
willing and/or available to assist with ARTCO’s breakaway barges and

R. Doc. 36 at p. 56, ¶ 55.
R. Doc. 36 at p. 56, ¶ 56.
136 812 F.2d 243, 246 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing Saint Paul Marine Transportation Corp. v. Cerro Sales
Corp., 505 F.2d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 1974)).
137 Allseas Mar., S.A. v. M/V Mimosa, 812 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1987).
134
135

30

they were the only individuals who responded to the breakaway
barges.138 Indeed, ARTCO did nothing to assist with the breakaway
barges until the following day, when its contracted fleet boats arrived to
bring the breakaway barges back to ARTCO’s fleets.139
b. The Salvage Plaintiffs’ trial testimony and the photographic evidence
confirm that the Salvage Plaintiffs secured at least 23 barges on the
East Bank of the Mississippi River after Hurricane Ida made landfall,
where they remained until ARTCO was able to retrieve them.140
c. The Court finds that ARTCO, and the rest of the Mississippi River,
benefited greatly from the Salvage Plaintiffs’ prompt actions in securing
and “beaching” those barges to prevent them from causing further
damage to other property. The trial testimony also highlighted that
ARTCO would have been required to invest significant resources to
retrieve any sunken barges had the barges not been secured.141
30. The fourth factor, the nature and degree of the danger, also weighs in favor of
a substantial salvage award because the 23 ARTCO breakaway barges were in
imminent danger of complete loss.142 The Court has already determined that
the danger faced by ARTCO’s 23 breakaway barges was sufficient to meet the

Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, and Capt. Sidney Freeman.
R. Doc. 36 at pp. 56-57, ¶ 56; Trial Testimony of Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, Capt. Sidney
Freeman, Capt. Kenny Billiot, Sr., and Capt. Kenny Billiot, Jr.
140 R. Doc. 36 at p. 57, ¶ 58.
141 Id. at pp. 57-58, ¶ 59; Trial Testimony of Andrew Minster.
142 See, Margate Shipping Co. v. M/V J.A. Orgeron, 143 F.3d 976, 984-85 (5th Cir. 1998); Allseas Mar.,
S.A. v. M/V Mimosa, 812 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1987); Sunglory Maritime, Ltd. v. PHI, Inc., 212 F.
Supp. 3d 618, 656-58 (E.D. La. 2016).
138
139

31

Salvage Plaintiffs’ minimal burden of proving a “marine peril.”143 The Court
further finds that the evidence at trial, namely the trial testimony of Capt.
Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, Capt. Sidney Freeman, Capt. Kenny Billiot,
Sr., Capt. Billiot, Jr., and Capt. Willhoft shows that the danger in question was
extreme, as one 55-foot towboat, which had already sustained damage after
being struck by one of ARTCO’s barges, single-handedly tended to a steady
stream of more than 23 barges that broke away from ARTCO’s fleet and drifted
downstream throughout the night after a hurricane.
31. The fifth factor, the skill and efforts of the salvors in salving the vessels, other
property, and life, further support a substantial salvage award. Capt. Michael
Berry, who was qualified as an expert, without objection by ARTCO, in towboat
and fleet boat navigation safety and operations, testified that the maneuvers
performed by the Salvage Plaintiffs were extraordinary and exhibited a very
high level of skill.144 Capt. Berry described the Salvage Plaintiffs’ efforts, in
both pushing the breakaway barges onto the bank of the river and taking the
initiative to push those barges onto the bank when others refused to venture
out into the weather conditions, as “phenomenal.”145

Capt. Berry further

testified that he agreed with Capt. Kenny Billiot, Jr. that it is harder to catch
a barge and push it without a line, as the Salvage Plaintiffs did, because there
is less control and greater reliance on the current of the river, which requires

See, supra, Finding of Fact No. 13.
R. Doc. 36 at p. 55, ¶ 52.
145 Trial Testimony of Capt. Michael Berry.
143
144

32

tow boating skills.146

Capt. Berry testified that Capt. Nicholas Currault

exhibited courage and great skill as a captain by pushing the breakaway
barges during dangerous hurricane conditions while using a boat with only one
working generator. Capt. Berry and Capt. Sidney Freeman both testified that,
contrary to ARTCO’s suggestion,147 the 23 breakaway ARTCO barges would
not have beached themselves without the aid of the Salvage Plaintiffs.148 The
Court found Capt. Berry credible and gives his opinions great weight.
a. At trial, the Salvage Plaintiffs presented evidence showing that, but for
their efforts, the ARTCO breakaway barges would have caused
substantial damage to themselves, as well as neighboring vessels and
facilities. By way of example, Capt. Willhoft testified that Crescent Ship
Services facility sustained over $10 million in damages when several
ARTCO breakaway barges struck Crescent Ship’s dock and crew boats
on August 29, 2021.149

While ARTCO’s representative denied that

ARTCO paid $10 million in damages to Crescent Ship Services, he
confirmed that Crescent Ship Services was damaged by ARTCO’s barges
and that ARTCO paid them damages.150 The evidence at trial also
highlighted the damage to the M/V SHELL FUELER, as well as some
damage to the M/V SAINT CHARLES, caused by ARTCO’s breakaway

Id.
See, Trial Testimony of Brent Beockmann.
148 Trial Testimony of Capt. Michael Berry and Capt. Sidney Freeman.
149 Trial Testimony of Capt. Willhoft.
150 Trial Testimony of Joseph Meerman.
146
147

33

barges.151 The Court finds that the skill and efforts of the Salvage
Plaintiffs saved ARTCO significant money and saved downriver
facilities and vessels from sustaining significant damage.152
b. The Court finds the fact that the M/V SHELL FUELER single-handedly
tended to a steady stream of breakaway barges flowing downriver from
an abandoned 513-barge fleet153 during a hurricane is an extraordinary
display of seamanship and boat handling.

The Salvage Plaintiffs

promptly devised a method to secure the drifting barges, and the
training, education, and experience performing specialty jobs on the
Mississippi River provided Capt. Nicholas Currault, Capt. Sidney
Freeman, and André Currault with the skills and knowledge needed to
successfully perform such a task. Troy Currault’s decades of experience
likewise helped to direct and support the operation.
32. Turning to the sixth factor, the time used and expenses and losses incurred by
the salvors, the Court finds that the Salvage Plaintiffs rescued ARTCO’s 23
breakaway barges over the course of approximately 10 hours.154 The Salvage
Plaintiffs testified that the salvage operations were fast moving, as there was
a steady stream of breakaway barges during those 10 hours, which forced the
Salvage Plaintiffs to be on high alert and utilize all of their resources and focus

Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, and Capt. Sidney Freeman.
R. Doc. 36 at p. 60, ¶ 62.
153 Trial Testimony of Brent Beockmann and Capt. Sidney Freeman.
154 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Capt. Sidney Freeman, and Troy Currault; Trial Exh.
No. 146.
151
152

34

at all times. While it is evident to the Court that the Salvage Plaintiffs burned
extra fuel by using the M/V SHELL FUELER to beach the ARTCO breakaway
barges, the Salvage Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence at trial regarding
the amount of fuel burned or the out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of
their salvage efforts. The only evidence before the Court is that one of the
generators on the M/V SHELL FUELER stopped working,155 and a refrigerator
that was mounted to the wall in the galley of the M/V SHELL FUELER broke
away from the wall and fell to the floor after the vessel was hit by one of
ARTCO’s breakaway barges.156

The Salvage Plaintiffs, however, did not

present any evidence indicating the cost of replacing the refrigerator. Capt.
Nicholas Currault testified that he did not include the replacement cost for the
generator in his prior property damage claim because he was able to fix it by
changing the regulator, which cost $40.157
33. The seventh factor, the risk of liability and other risks run by the salvors or
their equipment, the Court finds that the Salvage Plaintiffs incurred an
extremely high risk in preventing the downriver movement and sinking of
ARTCO’s breakaway barges, both as to the loss of their towing vessel, the M/V
SHELL FUELER, and their lives. Capt. Nicholas Currault and Capt. Sidney
Freeman testified that it was incredibly dangerous to be aboard the M/V
SHELL FUELER when the ARTCO breakaway barges started floating

Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Capt. Sidney Freeman, and Troy Currault.
Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault and Capt. Sidney Freeman.
157 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault.
155
156

35

downriver because there was no one else out there to help if something went
wrong, and there was no warning when additional breakaway barges
approached.158 In fact, Capt. Kenny Billiot, Sr. testified that he received a call
for help regarding ARTCO’s breakaway barges on the night of August 29, 2021,
and that he refused to provide assistance until daybreak because he did not
want to put his crew in danger.159 Capt. Kenny Billiot, Sr. further testified
that he would have helped with the ARTCO breakaway barges if he thought
that he could do so without endangering his crew or his vessels.160 Capt. Kenny
Billiot, Jr. similarly testified that he heard someone on the radio call for help
with an ARTCO breakaway barge, but that he did not take any action to locate
the person requesting assistance or leave the Wood Towing wash dock until
the next morning due to safety concerns.161
a. Capt. Nicholas Currault and Capt. Sidney Freeman testified that the
first ARTCO breakaway barge collided with the M/V SHELL FUELER
around 10 p.m. on August 29, 2021.162 The Salvage Plaintiffs testified
that their salvage efforts began almost immediately after the collision,
when Capt. Nicholas Currault saw more ARTCO breakaway barges
floating downriver in his direction, including one that struck the M/V
SAINT CHARLES where Troy Currault was stationed. Capt. Nicholas

Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault and Capt. Sidney Freeman.
Trial Testimony of Capt. Kenny Billiot, Sr.
160 Id.
161 Trial Testimony of Capt. Kenny Billiot, Jr.
162 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault and Capt. Sidney Freeman.
158
159

36

Currault testified that at around midnight on August 29, 2021, when he
was beaching the breakaway barges, there were 50 mile per hour winds
with up to 60 mile per hour gusts.163 Capt. Willhoft testified that when
he saw Capt. Nicholas Currault catch and beach two barges at around
two or three in the morning, the wind was blowing pretty hard, and he
estimated that it was in the 40 to 50 mile per hour range. 164 Capt.
Willhoft described the weather conditions as “hectic” for a towboat
captain moving barges in the Mississippi River, and said that the wind
speeds made it a dangerous situation.165
b. As to the risk posed to the M/V SHELL FUELER, Capt. Nicholas
Currault testified that Lower River, which he co-owns with Troy
Currault, acquired the M/V SHELL FUELER in 2020.166 While Troy
Currault testified that the M/V SHELL FUELER is the primary asset of
Lower River,167 the Salvage Plaintiffs did not present any evidence to
support that statement, to show that the M/V SHELL FUELER was
Lower River’s only asset, or to show that Lower River would go out of
business without it. Nonetheless, it is clear from the evidence presented
at trial that the Salvage Plaintiffs put the M/V SHELL FUELER at risk
by using it to beach the ARTCO breakaway barges when it only had one

Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault.
Trial Testimony of Capt. Willhoft.
165 Trial Testimony of Capt. Willhoft.
166 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault.
167 Trial Testimony of Troy Currault.
163
164

37

working generator and no one else was willing to render assistance with
the breakaway barges that night, including to the M/V SHELL FUELER
if it had experienced any trouble.
c. The Court finds that by voluntarily undertaking the salvage operation
under these conditions, the Salvage Plaintiffs endangered themselves
and their vessel, and exposed themselves to potential liability if they
were unsuccessful, all of which supports a substantial salvage award.
34. As to the eighth factor, the promptness of the services rendered, the Salvage
Plaintiffs all testified that Capt. Nicholas Currault reacted quickly to the
ARTCO breakaway barges flowing downriver.168 Capt. Nicholas Currault and
Capt. Sidney Freeman testified that the first ARTCO breakaway barge collided
with the M/V SHELL FUELER around 10 p.m. on August 29, 2021, and that
additional breakaway barges continued to float downriver towards the M/V
SHELL FUELER and the Lower River facility for several hours.169 Capt.
Nicholas Currault further testified that he immediately began using the wheel
wash of the M/V SHELL FUELER to push the ARTCO breakaway barges away
from the towboat, and then he began to beach the ARTCO breakaway barges
as they floated downriver.170

Capt. Nicholas Currault testified that he

continued to beach additional ARTCO breakaway barges for the next several

See, Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, Capt. Sidney Freeman; Trial
Exhibit 146.
169 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault and Capt. Sidney Freeman. See, Trial Exhibit 146 at
p. 11.
170 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault.
168

38

hours, from around midnight on August 29, 2021 until around 6 a.m. the next
day.171 Capt. Nicholas Currault’s testimony is supported by the trial testimony
of Troy Currault and Capt. Sidney Freeman, and by the deposition testimony
of André Currault.172

Further, Randall Brent Beockmann (“Brent

Beockmann”), the general manager of operations at ARTCO, testified that
ARTCO did not advise any of its neighboring fleet facilities of its hurricane
plan, which involved sending its vessels and employees home during a storm,
leaving over 500 barges unattended.173 Thus, when the Salvage Plaintiffs
began their salvage efforts, they were unaware of how many ARTCO
breakaway barges could be floating downriver towards them. The Court finds
that the Salvage Plaintiffs acted promptly to provide salvage services on their
own accord, without being asked to do so by the Coast Guard or ARTCO, and
despite two of their vessels having been struck by breakaway ARTCO barges.
35. Regarding the ninth Salvage Convention factor, the availability and use of
vessels or other equipment intended for salvage operations, the Court finds
that the M/V SHELL FUELER was the only vessel in the area with a crew
willing or able to stop the downriver movement and sinking of ARTCO’s
breakaway barges.174 Joseph Meerman testified that ARTCO sent all of its
wheelmen home before Hurricane Ida hit.175

Brent Beockmann similarly

Id..
Trial Testimony of Troy Currault and Capt. Sidney Freeman; Trial Exhibit 146.
173 Trial Testimony of Brent Beockmann.
174 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Capt. Sidney Freeman, Troy Currault, Capt. Kenny
Billiot, Sr., Capt. Kenny Billiot, Jr., and Brent Beockmann.
175 Trial Testimony of Joseph Meerman.
171
172

39

testified that, as part of its hurricane plan, ARTCO sent all of its vessels home
before the storm, leaving almost 500 barges in its fleet by themselves.176 While
Beockmann testified that ARTCO submitted its hurricane plan to the Coast
Guard, Beockmann ultimately admitted that he had not produced a single
document in this litigation showing that ARTCO’s hurricane plan was ever
approved by the Coast Guard.177 Additionally, Captain Kenny Billiot, Sr.,
Captain Kenny Billiot, Jr., Brent Beockmann, and Joseph Meerman all
testified that ARTCO’s contracted fleet boats were unwilling to provide any
assistance to the ARTCO breakaway barges until the morning after Hurricane
Ida hit due to safety concerns for their crew and vessels.178 Finally, Capt.
Nicholas Currault and Troy Currault have extensive experience providing
salvage services to the industry.179 Capt. Nicholas Currault testified that
Lower River used the M/V SHELL FUELER to push barges and perform
maritime work.180

The trial evidence further supports that the Salvage

Plaintiffs’ vessel, manned with a captain with the skills and knowledge
necessary to respond to this event, was the only vessel in the area that was
willing and able to assist with ARTCO’s breakaway barges. .
36. Turning to the tenth and final factor, the state of readiness and efficiency of
the salvor’s equipment and the value thereof, the Court finds that the Salvage

Trial Testimony of Brent Beockmann.
Id.
178 Trial Testimony of Capt. Kenny Billiot, Sr., Kenny Billiot, Jr., Brent Beockmann, and Joseph
Meerman.
179 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault and Troy Currault.
180 Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault.
176
177

40

Plaintiffs’ equipment, including the M/V SHELL FUELER, its navigational
equipment, mooring rope, and fuel, were in a state of readiness and efficiency
that enabled the Salvage Plaintiffs to quickly begin rescuing ARTCO’s
breakaway barges from continuing downriver and either sinking or causing
property damage. Based upon the trial testimony, the M/V SHELL FUELER
was the only vessel ready to assist ARTCO’s breakaway barges and promptly
did so.181 Andrew Minster testified at trial that the fair market value of the
M/V SHELL FUELER on August 29, 2021 was $500,000.182
D. Weighing the Factors
37. The Salvage Convention provides little guidance regarding how the Court is to
weigh the ten factors, stating only that, “The reward shall be fixed with a view
to encouraging salvage operations, taking into account the [ten factors] without
regard to the order in which they are presented . . . .”183 The clearest guidance
offered by the Salvage Convention is that, “The rewards, exclusive of any
interest and recoverable legal costs that may be payable thereon, shall not
exceed the salved value of the vessel and other property.”184 In this case, the
value of the salved property is $18,807,500.00.
38. As previously mentioned, the parties have agreed that if the Salvage Plaintiffs
are unable to prove at trial that they helped prevent or minimize damage to

Trial Testimony of Capt. Nicholas Currault, Troy Currault, Capt. Sidney Freeman, Capt. Kenny
Billiot, Sr., Capt. Kenny Billiot, Jr., Joseph Meerman.
182 Trial Testimony of Andrew Minster.
183 Salvage Convention, art. 13(1).
184 Salvage Convention, art. 13(3).
181

41

the environment, as required under the Salvage Convention, the outcome of
the case will be the same as if general maritime law had applied.185
39. Because the Court has determined that the Salvage Plaintiffs failed to prove
that they helped minimize damage to the environment, the Court finds that
general maritime principles apply to determine the appropriate salvage
amount to be awarded to the Salvage Plaintiffs.
40. In applying such maritime principles in the context of a salvage award, the
Fifth Circuit has held that, “Because of the fact-specific nature of the
calculation of a salvage award, ‘the amount allowed is to be decided by the
district court in its sound discretion.’”186 Further, as the Supreme Court noted,
“[c]ompensation as salvage is . . . viewed by the admiralty courts . . . as a reward
given for perilous services, voluntarily rendered, and as an inducement to
seamen and others to embark in such undertakings to save life and property.”187
41. In Margate Shipping Co. v. M/V JA Orgeron, the most recent Fifth Circuit case
to consider a salvage claim, the Fifth Circuit held that, “In order properly to
induce the salvor (and salvee) to act . . . the law must provide for a proper and
reasonable salvage award, one that gives neither the salvor too little incentive
to do the salvage properly, nor the salvee too little reason to care if his property
is saved.”188 The Fifth Circuit explained that, “By definition, this ‘efficient’ fee

R. Doc. 38 at pp. 2-3.
Margate Shipping Co. v. M/V JA Orgeron, 143 F.3d 976, 983 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Allseas
Maritime, S.A. v. M/V Mimosa, 812 F.2d 243, 246 (5th Cir. 1987)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
187 Margate, 143 F.3d at 986 (quoting The Blackwall, 77 U.S. 1, 14, 19 L.Ed. 870 (1869)) (emphasis
added by Margate).
188 Margate, 143 F.3d at 986 (citation omitted).
185
186

42

is the one that would have been reached by the parties through voluntary
negotiation in an open and competitive market, and its value will depend on a
number of factual considerations.”189 The Fifth Circuit in Margate held that,
“By far the most important of these considerations, however, will be the cost to
potential salvors of performing the service and the benefit to the salvee of it
being performed,” since “no voluntary salvor would be willing to perform a
salvage for less than it would cost him to do it, just as no salvee would agree to
pay more for a salvage than the loss he could thereby avoid.”190 The Fifth
Circuit further held that, “the Blackwall factors represent an explicit guide for
the court to use in measuring these two most significant considerations for
voluntary negotiation in the salvage context.”191 The Fifth Circuit in Margate
expressly held that the value of the salved property is “the principal measure
of the benefit of the salvage to the salvee,” and, as a result, “is clearly one of
the most important of the Blackwall factors and must be accorded substantial
deference in the calculation of any award.”192 The Fifth Circuit reiterates this
point several times in the opinion, further emphasizing the importance of the
value of the salved property when weighing the Blackwall factors.193

Id.
Id. at 986-87(citation omitted).
191 Id. at 987 (citations omitted).
192 Id.
193 Id. at 989 (“Furthermore, and as we just stated above, our analysis of the economic foundations of
the Blackwall rule indicates that the value of the salved property is one of the most important of the
factors.”); Id. at 990 (“Furthermore, as the often critical measure of the arm’s-length salvage price that
the Blackwall rule attempts to ascertain, it is clear that value of the salved property is one of the most
important of the factors, and the one that truly cannot be ignored.”).
189
190

43

42. The Court finds that the facts of this case are similar to those in Margate, and
warrant a substantial salvage award.194 In Margate, the district court found
that the salved property – a barge carrying an external fuel tank for a NASA
space shuttle – was in imminent danger of complete loss, the salved property
was valued at $53.3 million, the salvors incurred extremely high risk as to the
loss of their ship and lives, and as to the creation of substantial environmental
liability in the event of an oil spill, the salvors displayed extremely high
promptitude, skill, and energy in rescuing the salved property under very
difficult conditions, the salving property was valued at $7.5 million, and the
salvors expended two and one-third days of labor in rendering the salvage
service.195 As recounted by the Fifth Circuit, “the district court determined
that each factor indicated the highest possible award, and it chose 12.5% of the
salved value [$6.4 million], as an appropriate figure.”196 On appeal, the Fifth
Circuit was quick to point out that, “This appeal arises from the grant of what
appears be the largest maritime salvage award in recorded history.” 197 The
Fifth Circuit determined that the district court clearly erred in its
determination of the value of the salved property, which the court reduced to

The Court recognizes that at least two district courts, including this one, have addressed salvage
claims post-Margate, but the Court finds those cases distinguishable because the value of the salved
property in those cases, which the Fifth Circuit has held is the most important factor, was significantly
lower than the value of ARTCO’s 23 breakaway barges. See, Sunglory Maritime, Ltd. v. PHI, Inc., 212
F. Supp. 3d 618, 654 (E.D. La. 2016) (value of salved property was $2 million); U.S. v. Ex-USS
CABOT/DEDALO, 179 F. Supp. 2d 697, 712 (S.D. Tex. 2000) (value of salved property was
$185,000.00).
195 Margate, 143 F.3d at 984-85.
196 Id. at 985.
197 Id. at 979-80.
194

44

$31 million.198 Applying the district court’s 12.5% salvage percentage to that
value, the Fifth Circuit calculated a modified salvage award of $4.125
million.199 The Fifth Circuit then “compiled a list of the nine largest federal
salvage awards in comparable high-value, high-order cases since the advent of
the Blackwall rule,” and, after adjusting the amounts to 1994 dollars on the
basis of the relevant U.S. Consumer Price Index deflator, determined that the
reduced $4.125 million/12.5% award “is not so excessive as to constitute an
abuse of discretion in the context of this case.”200 The Fifth Circuit further
observed that, “The range of percentages appears to run from about 4% to 25%,
and the percentage here is smack in the middle of that range.”201 The Fifth
Circuit commented, however, that, “as the district court noted, it is rare that a
salvage action would involve such high ratings on each of the factors as was
the case here.”202
43. Here, the Court has found that a majority of the Salvage Convention factors
weigh in favor of a substantial award, reaching the following conclusions as to
the ten Salvage Convention factors:
1. the salved value of the 23 ARTCO breakaway barges on August 29,
2021 was $18,807,500.00;
2. the Salvage Plaintiffs failed to show that their actions prevented or
minimized damage to the environment;
3. the Salvage Plaintiffs achieved a high level of success in preventing
the downriver movement, destruction, and sinking of ARTCO’s 23
breakaway barges;
Id. at 990-93.
Id.
200 Id. at 993-95.
201 Id. at 995.
202 Id.
198
199

45

4. the 23 breakaway barges were in imminent danger of complete loss;
5. the Salvage Plaintiffs demonstrated a high level of skill and effort in
salving the 23 breakaway barges and preventing damage to other
property;
6. the Salvage Plaintiffs expended approximately 10 hours in rendering
the salvage service, but failed to present sufficient evidence to show the
expenses and losses incurred in undertaking the salvage operation;
7. the Salvage Plaintiffs incurred a high risk in saving the 23 ARTCO
breakaway barges, both as to the loss of their vessel, the M/V SHELL
FUELER, and their lives;
8. the Salvage Plaintiffs displayed extremely high promptitude and
energy in rescuing the 23 breakaway barges by virtue of their daring
and successful seamanship under difficult conditions;
9. the M/V SHELL FUELER, which was typically used to push barges
and for other maritime work, was the only vessel in the area with a crew
willing and able to stop the downriver movement and sinking of
ARTCO’s breakaway barges; and
10. the Salvage Plaintiffs’ equipment, including the M/V SHELL
FUELER, was ready to assist the ARTCO breakaway barges, and the
fair market value of the M/V SHELL FUELER on August 29, 2021 was
$500,000.00.
44. Thus, the Court finds that seven of the ten Salvage Convention factors weigh
in favor of a substantial salvage award, with the second, sixth, and tenth
factors weighing against a substantial award.
45. As previously mentioned, “At least two district courts that have considered
salvage claims pursuant to the Salvage Convention have concluded that the
‘six Blackwall factors were essentially adopted, although not in identical
language, by the 1989 Salvage Convention.’”203
46. Unlike in Margate, where the district court found that all six of the Blackwall
factors supported “the highest possible award,”204 this Court finds that two of

Sunglory Maritime, Ltd. v. PHI, Inc., 212 F. Supp. 3d 618, 653 (E.D. La. 2016) (quoting DOROTHY
J v. City of New York, 749 F. Supp. 2d 50, 70 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) & citing In re Mielke, Civ. A. No. 1013519, 2013 WL 5913681, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 1, 2013) (Zatkoff, J.)).
204 Margate, 143 F.3d at 985.
203

46

the Blackwall factors – the labor expended by the salvors in rendering the
salvage service (factor #1) and the value of the property used by the salvors in
rendering the service (factor #3) in this case – do not support a high salvage
award. In Margate, the district court found that the value of the property used
by the salvors was $7.5 million, and that the salvors expended two and onethird days of labor in rendering the salvage service.205 Here, the M/V SHELL
FUELER is valued at $500,000.00 and the Salvage Plaintiffs expended only
approximately 10 hours of labor in rendering salvage service. Additionally, the
Fifth Circuit in Margate held that the district court did not err by considering
the risk of environmental liability incurred by the salvors under the fourth
Blackwall factor.206 Here, the Salvage Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient
evidence regarding the risk of environmental liability that they incurred.
47. Based upon the foregoing distinctions, the Court finds it appropriate to award
a substantial salvage award to the Salvage Plaintiffs, but in an amount less
than that awarded in Margate. The Court recognizes that the Margate court’s
salvage award of $4.125 million in 1998 has the equivalent value of
approximately $6.9 million in 2021, the year that the salvage operation
occurred in this matter.207

Id.
Id. at 985 & 988-89.
207 See, U.S. Inflation Calculator, https://perma.cc/4MLT-6JLL ($6,857,369.63); Bureau of Labor
Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator, https://perma.cc/SK9M-LHSX ($6,923,091.26).
205
206

47

48. The Salvage Plaintiffs seek an award of $9,400,000.00, which is approximately
50% of the value of the salved property.208 The Court agrees with ARTCO that
an award of $9.4 million would be the largest award in salvage history, and
further finds that such an award would constitute a windfall to the Salvage
Plaintiffs and is not warranted under the facts of this case in light of the
Court’s above analysis.209 As recognized by another Section of this Court, “It
is certainly the policy of the maritime law to grant salvage awards that will
encourage seamen to incur risk in going to the aid of vessels in distress; but it
was never the policy of the law to allow a situation created by calamity to be
converted into a windfall of unreasonable extravagance.”210 Moreover, the
Fifth Circuit has cautioned that, when setting the percentage applicable to the
fifth Blackwall factor (the value of the saved property), “some care should of
course be taken to stay within the bounds of historical practice, . . . and to
account for all of the relevant circumstances of the specific salvage at issue.”211
Further, “The predominant consideration, however, should always be to arrive
at an award that reasonably reflects the price upon which the parties would
have agreed.”212
49. Weighing all of the Salvage Convention factors, and guided by considerations
of equity as well as the policy considerations of salvage awards, the Court

R. Doc. 36 at ¶ 95.
R. Doc. 35 at p. 31, ¶ 94.
210 Sunglory Maritime, Ltd. v. PHI, Inc., 212 F. Supp. 3d 618, 666 (E.D. La. Sept. 9, 2016) (quoting
Sobonis v. Steam Tanker Nat’l Def., 298 F. Supp. 631, 640 (S.D.N.Y. 1969)) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
211 Sunglory, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 652 (citing Margate, 143 F.3d at 989).
212 Margate Shipping Co. v. M/V JA Orgeron, 143 F.3d 976, 989 (5th Cir. 1998).
208
209

48

concludes that a salvage award of $3,761,500.00, or 20% of the fair market
value of ARTCO’s 23 breakaway barges, is appropriate in this matter.
E. Pre-Judgment Interest
50. The Salvage Convention provides that, “The right of the salvor to interest on
any payment due under this Convention shall be determined according to the
law of the [country] in which the tribunal seized of the case is situated.”213
51. “In the United States, it is generally accepted that ‘under the maritime law,
the award of prejudgment interest is ‘well-nigh automatic.’

Furthermore,

admiralty courts have discretion in setting the rate of prejudgment interest.”214
52. “As a general rule, prejudgment interest should be awarded in admiralty
cases—not as a penalty, but as compensation for the use of funds to which the
claimant was rightfully entitled.”215
53. “[I]n maritime cases the award of prejudgment interest is the rule, rather than
the exception, and the trial court has discretion to deny prejudgment interest
only where peculiar circumstances would make such an award inequitable.”216
54. The Fifth Circuit has held that, “Peculiar circumstances may be found where
plaintiff improperly delayed resolution of the action, where a genuine dispute
over a good faith claim exists in a mutual fault setting, where some equitable

Salvage Convention, art. 24.
Sunglory, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 674 (quoting Jauch v. Nautical Servs., Inc., 470 F.3d 207, 214-15 (5th
Cir. 2006) & citing Platoro Ltd., Inc. v. Unidentified Remains of a Vessel, Her Cargo, Apparel, Tackle,
& Furniture, in a Cause of Salvage, Civil & Mar., 695 F.2d 893, 907 (5th Cir. 1983)).
215 Comar Marine, Corp. v. Raider Marine Logistics, L.L.C., 792 F.3d 564, 580 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting
Noritake Co. v. M/V Hellenic Champion, 627 F.2d 724, 728 (5th Cir. Unit A 1980)) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
216 Corpus Christi Oil & Gas Co. v. Zapata Gulf Marine Corp., 71 F.3d 198, 205 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing
Reeled Tubing, Inc. v. M/V Chad G, 794 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir. 1986)).
213
214

49

doctrine cautions against the award, or where the damages award was
substantially less than the amount claimed by the plaintiff.”217
55. “[I]n this Circuit, prejudgment interest is ordinarily awarded from the date of
loss.”218
56. The Court finds that no peculiar circumstances exist to deny an award of
prejudgment interest. While the salvage amount awarded by the Court is less
than the amount claimed by the Salvage Plaintiffs, the amount awarded was
determined by equity, historical considerations, and policy considerations of
salvage awards. There was no evidence introduced that the Salvage Plaintiffs
either fabricated or exaggerated the amount they claimed. The Court’s finding
in this respect is similar to the finding by the court in Sunglory Maritime, Ltd.
v. PHI, Inc. that, “the damages ultimately awarded are substantially less than
those claimed by Plaintiffs, which weighs against an award of prejudgment
interest, but this was not a case of two parties with ‘good faith claims [who]
both have been found to be at fault,’ which therefore weighs in favor of allowing
prejudgment interest.”219 While ARTCO contends that, “there is cause to
question whether the salvage claim was brought in good faith,” 220 it fails to
provide any support whatsoever for that statement, and the Court has found
none.

Reeled Tubing, Inc., 794 F.2d at 1028 (citing authority).
Id. (citing authority).
219 212 F. Supp. 3d 618, 675 (E.D. La. 2016) (quoting St. James Stevedoring Partners, LLC v. Motion
Navigation Ltd., Civ. A. No. 13-541, 2014 WL 3892178, at *19 (E.D. La. Aug. 6, 2014) (Lemon, J.)).
220 R. Doc. 35 at ¶ 101.
217
218

50

57. The Court will exercise its discretion and award prejudgment interest to the
Salvage Plaintiffs from the date of judicial demand of the salvage claim rather
than the date of loss. The Court makes this determination recognizing the
competing factors set forth above. While recognizing the Salvage Plaintiffs’
delay in filing the salvage claim, the Court further recognizes that the late
filing only minimally delayed the proceedings and the matter was brought to
trial less than one year after the lawsuit was filed by Salvage Plaintiffs.221
Further, the Court has not found any evidence that the Salvage Plaintiffs
“improperly delayed resolution of the action.”222
58. The Court further recognizes the trial testimony that three of the salvage
plaintiffs – Troy Currault, Capt. Nicholas Currault, and André Currault – run
a family-owned business (salvage plaintiff, Lower River), and finds that they
are entitled to be compensated for the use of funds to which the Salvage
Plaintiffs were entitled, but which ARTCO had use of prior to judgment.223
59. Accordingly, the Court awards the Salvage Plaintiffs prejudgment interest at
a rate of 5%, which is consistent with the rate for post-judgment interest set
by the Federal Reserve Board pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Prejudgment

As noted in the Introduction, the litigation began in August 2022 when Crescent Ship Service, Inc.,
its insurers, and Lower River Ship Service, LLC filed three separate lawsuits for property damage
allegedly caused by barges that broke away from ARTCO’s fleet during the hurricane. In July 2023,
the Salvage Plaintiffs filed its Verified Marine Salvage Complaint against ARTCO, seeking a marine
salvage award, and the case proceeded to trial in April 2024. See, R. Doc. 1.
222 Comar Marine, Corp. v. Raider Marine Logistics, L.L.C., 792 F.3d 564, 580 (5th Cir. 2015).
223 See, Reeled Tubing, 794 F.2d at 1028 (“Prejudgment interest is usually awarded to the date of loss
to ensure that the injured plaintiff is compensated for the use of funds to which the plaintiff was
entitled, but which the defendant had use of prior to judgment.”) (citation omitted).
221

51

interest shall begin from the date of judicial demand made by the Salvage
Plaintiffs.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court

finds that the Salvage Plaintiffs, Capt. Nicholas Currault, André Currault, Troy
Currault, Lower River Ship Service, LLC, and Capt. Sidney Freeman, are entitled to
a salvage award in the amount of $3,761,500.00, and further that that Salvage
Plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest at a rate of 5% from the date of judicial
demand made by the Salvage Plaintiffs.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that there be judgment in favor of Salvage
Plaintiffs, Capt. Nicholas Currault, André Currault, Troy Currault, Lower River Ship
Service, LLC, and Capt. Sidney Freeman, and against defendant, American River
Transportation Company, LLC, on Salvage Plaintiffs’ claim for a salvage award in
the amount of $3,761,500.00.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment
interest on their award in the amount of 5% from the date of judicial demand by the
Salvage Plaintiffs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Salvage Plaintiffs shall have ten (10)
business days from the date of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to
provide the Court with a proposed Final Judgment that is commensurate with the
Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Salvage Plaintiffs shall send

52

the

proposed

Final

Judgment

to

the

Court’s

email

address,

[e-mail].
New Orleans, Louisiana, June 14, 2024.
______________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge

53

efile-