The opinion of the court was delivered by: Fullam, Sr. J.
On November 26, 2004, the single-hulled tanker ATHOS I was traveling up the Delaware River, nearing the end of a 1900-mile journey from Puerto Miranda, Venezuela to Paulsboro, New Jersey. Approximately 900 feet from the dock of the refinery where it was to discharge its cargo, the tanker struck a submerged nine-ton object that ripped two holes in the hull. Some 200,000 barrels of heavy crude oil spilled into the river, with devastating ecological results. The United States government launched a multi-agency response to the disaster, at great cost but with marked success. The issue to be decided by this Court, one explored in exhaustive detail during 41 days of a non-jury trial, is whether the companies associated with the refinery, CITGO Asphalt Refining Company, CITGO Petroleum Corporation, and CITGO East Coast Oil Corporation (collectively, "CARCO") may be held responsible for the clean-up costs and the losses associated with the damage to the ship. For the reasons explained below, I conclude that they may not. I have set forth in narrative fashion my findings of fact (as determined by a preponderance of the credible evidence) and conclusions of law.
On January 21, 2005, Frescati Shipping Company, Ltd., as owner of the M/T ATHOS I, and Tsakos Shipping & Trading, S.A., as manager of the ATHOS I (collectively, "Frescati") filed a "Petition for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability" pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 183, in connection with claims by the government or others affected by the spill. In the limitation action, filed at Civil Action No. 05-305, CITGO Asphalt Refining Company filed a claim for damages associated with the spill (as did others), and Frescati filed a counterclaim against all three CARCO entities. The United States government later filed a separate action against CARCO at Civil Action No. 08-2898. Frescati and the government resolved their differences, and many claims were settled through administrative proceedings. The trial before the Court comprised all claims by Frescati and the government against CARCO. As the government's claims are based upon its status as statutory subrogee to the contract-based claims raised by Frescati, they will not be discussed separately.
The Ship, the Contracts, and the Cargo The ATHOS I was a Panamax-sized tanker*fn1 with a beam of 105 feet, six inches, and a length of 748 feet. It sailed under the flag of Cyprus and was chartered by Frescati to Star Tankers, Inc., as part of a pooling agreement or time charter. Star Tankers chartered the ship to CARCO with the terms summarized on a "Fixture Recap" dated November 12, 2004. The Fixture Recap incorporated the standard industry form known as "ASBATANKVOY" and included additional terms; it did not specify the port other than as a "safe port" in the United States or the Caribbean. On November 15, 2004, the master of the ATHOS I, Captain Iosif Markoutsis, received a "Fixture Note" that confirmed the ship would discharge at a safe port in the United States. The load port was designated as Puerto Miranda, Venezuela.
Star Tankers and CARCO executed a formal "Charter Party," dated November 12, 2004, with an addendum dated December 8, 2004 providing that the laws of the United States govern the contract. The Charter Party (sometimes referred to as a "Voyage Subcharter") was prepared on the standard ASBATANKVOY form and included warranties that the vessel would proceed to the discharging port "or so near thereunto as she may safely get (always afloat) and deliver said cargo," and that the vessel would discharge "at any safe place or wharf" designated by the Charterer, "provided the Vessel can proceed thereto, lie at, and depart therefrom always safely afloat." Ex. P-357.
Upon arriving at Puerto Miranda, the ATHOS I loaded slightly more than 300,000 barrels of heavy crude oil from facilities owned by PDVSA Petroleo, S.A. (the parent company of CARCO). As loading was completed, Captain Markoutsis was presented with the bill of lading for the voyage. The front of the bill of lading form contained spaces for certain information to be filled in for the specific voyage. In the spaces available for the insertion of information concerning the Charter Party, the word "NIL" (meaning "nothing") appeared several times.
The reverse side of the bill of lading included a series of preprinted clauses, one of which specified that English law would govern any disputes. The bill of lading also included language that the cargo was "to be delivered at the Port of Paulsboro, New Jersey, or, so near thereto as the vessel can safely get, always afloat . . . ." Ex. P-375.
Captain Markoutsis signed the bill of lading on November 19, 2004, but also issued two letters of protest dated the same day. One letter noted a discrepancy of 310.53 barrels between the vessel's records and the bill of lading, Ex. P-381, and the other protested that the bill of lading did not record the date of the Voyage Subcharter of November 12, 2004, which the master requested that PDVSA Petroleo record on the original bills of lading, Ex. P-380. The ATHOS I left Puerto Miranda on November 20, 2004.
At approximately 9:02 p.m. on November 26, 2004, the Delaware River docking pilot was on board the ATHOS I and tug boats were maneuvering into position when the ship began to list to the port side and oil was observed in the water. The ATHOS I, although damaged, remained afloat; it did not run aground at any point. The cause of the disaster is uncontested to the extent that all parties agree that the ATHOS I struck a submerged object. Although the object is always referred to as an anchor, the shank had been removed at some point before the object was deposited in the river, so that it could not be used as a ship's anchor (and, because any identifying marks would have been on the shank, its owner could not be traced). No evidence as to how the anchor came to rest in the river was proffered at trial, but there is supposition that it may have been used as part of dredging operations. There is no evidence that any party to this litigation -- Frescati, CARCO, or the government -- knew or had reason to believe that the anchor was in the river, although it is well-known that all sorts of objects that present a potential danger to navigation lurk beneath the surface of the waters. The parties stipulated that the anchor had been in the river since at least 2001, as close examination of a sonar scan conducted that year by researchers from the University of Delaware reveals the anchor in approximately the same spot where the ATHOS I came to grief, in an area of the Delaware River known as Federal Anchorage No. 9 or the Mantua Creek Anchorage ("the Anchorage").*fn2
By federal law, the United States Army Corps of Engineers bears the responsibility of keeping the Anchorage dredged to a depth of 40 feet, lest it become too shallow for commercial navigation. The testimony at trial was to the effect that the government does not regularly survey the Anchorage for possible hazards to navigation, but that if a hazard is brought to the government's attention it will be removed if feasible, or mariners will be notified of its location.
At trial, each side blamed the other for the casualty. The plaintiffs contend that CARCO is liable in tort under the theories of wharfinger negligence and misrepresentation, because CARCO failed to survey for obstructions into the Anchorage and because CARCO failed to notify the crew of the ATHOS I that CARCO recently had determined that the maximum draft (i.e., the distance from the bottom of the ship to the surface of the water) that would be accepted at its berth had been reduced from 38 feet to 36 feet. The ATHOS I had a draft of at least 36 feet, six inches, and thus, according to the plaintiffs, had Captain Markoutsis known of the change, the ATHOS I either would not have attempted to reach the berth, would have attempted to decrease the ship's draft before moving upriver, or would have scheduled the passage to arrive at high tide. Frescati also argues that CARCO is liable under the Charter Party and the bill of lading on various contract and warranty theories.
The defendants argue that the blame lies with Frescati (because the ATHOS I was in poor condition, its draft was significantly more than 36 feet, six inches, and its crew failed to engage in proper voyage planning that would have brought the ship in at the proper stage of the tide); with the government (because the Anchorage is solely its responsibility); or with the unknown ...