Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): United States”). 11 . It is a general principle of admiralty law that an owner of a vessel has a right to decline salvage assistance and that "a salvor who acts without the express or implied consent of the owner is a 'gratuitous intermed-dler' who is not entitled to any salvage award.” 2 Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty & Maritime Law § 16-1 at 360-61 (3d ed.2001). Interestingly, however, there is dicta in several cases limiting this principle to instances where only the owner’s property interests are at stake. See, e.g., Smit Americas, Inc. v. M/T MANTINIA, 259 F.Supp.2d 118, 134 (D.P.R.2003) (suggesting that an owner's right of refusal is limited in situations involving imminent danger of large losses of the property of third persons); Ramsey v. Pohatcong, 77 F. 996 (S.D.N.Y.1896) (<HOLDING>); see also Martin J. Norris, The Law of Seaman, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that funds held in escrow are property of the estate only to the extent of the debtors independent right to that property (B) holding that injury to business or property was not limited to commercial interests (C) holding that tugboat was bound to respect the masters decision to refuse salvage assistance where case involved only ordinary property interests and did not involve imminent danger to life nor the danger of large losses of the property of third persons (D) holding that under missouri law the term property damage defined as physical injury to tangible property does not cover losses due to the insureds negligent performance of contract work where the defective work does not cause accidental injury to surrounding property (E) holding that only courts in the county where property was situated had jurisdiction to hear an action concerning the property
Output (English): holding that funds held in escrow are property of the estate only to the extent of the debtors independent right to that property