FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 8- 14 92 5 D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 20 73 9- CV-PC H BLUE WATER MARINE SERVICES , INC., a Fl or id a co rp or at io n d oi ng bu si ne ss as Towb oa tU.S. So ut h Dad e, Pl ai nt iff -Co un te rDefen da nt -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us M/ Y NATAL ITA III, a 1 00 -fo otAzim

utS.R.L. m ot or y ach t, h er en gi ne s, ap pa rel an d ap pu rte na nc es , in rem , NATALITA III LIM ITED, Defen da nt s- Co un te rCl ai m an ts -Ap pe ll ees , SAGICOR GENERAL INSURANCE (COMP ANY) LTD. , in pe rs on am , ALL UND ERW RITERS SUB SCRI BING TO COVER NOTE JY4 16 00 8X, INCLUDING SANTAM INSURANCE COM PANY LIMITED, Defen da nt s- App el le es .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 8, 2 00 9) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, BIRC H andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Bl ue W at er Ma rin e Servi ces , Inc . (“ Bl ue W at er”) ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s
or de r de nyin g e nf

or cem en t o f Bl ue W at er’s p ur po rte d c on tra ctwit h t he de fen da nt , Nata li taIII, an d d en y in g B lu e Water’s cl ai m fora pu re s al va ge award . Blu e Water al so ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s cl os in g o f it s ca se wit ho utad dr es si ng it s cl ai m ag ai ns t Sa nt am

Ins ur an ce, Nat al it a III’s u nd erwri te r. I. On M arch 19 , 20 08 , th e y ach t Nat al it a III r an ag ro un d o n areef in Bis cayne Nati on al Park . The y ach t’s capt ai ns rad io eda lo cal to w com pa ny for as si st an ce. Upo n o ve rh eari ng th e rad io cal l, Bl ue W at er d is pa tc he d o ne of i ts bo at s t o a ss is t th e y ach t. Aft er s uc ces sf ul ly rem ov in g t he y ach t t o s afe wat ers , Blu e Water’s cap ta in ask eda Nata li taIII capt ai n t o s ig n aform co nt ractst at in g t ha t Bl ue W at er

2was en ti tl edto a pu re s al va ge awardforth e res cu e. Nata li taIII’s cap ta in si gn ed

th e co nt ract . Nata li taIII’s o wne rs lat er re fu se d t o p ay Blu e Water t he pu re s al va ge award . Blu e Water t he n s ou gh t t o e nf or ce t he form

co nt ractpro vi si on in th e di st ric t co urt u nd er ad m ira lt y juri sd ic ti on . Fol lo win g abe nc h t ria l, t he di st ric t

1
co urt s it ti ng in equi ty fou ndin fav orof Na ta li taIII. The di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t Bl ue W at er an d Nat al it a III r each edanora l ag reem en t o n t he co stof s erv ic es pr io r to Blu e Water’s res cu e eff ort. As ares ul t o f th is ora l ag reem en t, Bl ue W at er co ul d n otreco ve r a p ur e sa lv ag e award . In ad di ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t
ev en if B lu e Water was en ti tl edto see k a n a wardforpu re s al va ge , th e p os t-r es cu e fo rm co nt ractpro vi si on for

pu re s al va ge was u ne nf

or ceab le on a va rie ty of equi tabl e g ro un ds , in cl ud in g dur es s an d v io la ti on of p ub li c p ol ic y . II . The di stric t co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actm us t s ta ndun le ss cle arl y

erro ne ou s, an d itis set tl edth atth e cl earl y erro ne ou s s tand ardof r ev ie w app li es in ad m ira lt y cas es . McAll is te r v. Un it ed

St at es , 34 8 U.S. 1 9, 2 0, 7 5 S . Ct. 6 , 8 (1 95 4) . In re vi ewin g th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs of f actan d c on cl us io ns of l aw, we no te th at“ [n ]o gr eat er s co pe of r ev ie w is ex erci se d b y th e ap pe ll at e tr ib un al s i n a dm ira lty cas es Admiralty

jurisdiction was proper

under 28 U .S.C. § 1333. 1 3th an th ey

ex erci se un de r Ru le 52 (a) o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e.” Id
. Thu s, fi nd in gs of f

acton ly w il l b e rev ers edif t he y are cl earl y

erro ne ou s. Id
. The di st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io ns of l aw orap pl ic at io ns of l aw to pa rti cu la r fac ts are subjec t t o de no vo rev ie w. See , e.g. , Bos e Co rp . v. Con su mer s Un io n o f U.S., Inc
. , 46 6 U.S. 4 85 , 50 1, 1 04 S. Ct. 1 94 9, 1 95 9 (1 98 4)
. Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rd , read in g t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs an d h av in g t he be ne fit of ora l ar gu m en t, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs of f actare n ot cl earl y erro ne ou s. II I. Bl ue W at er fi rs t as se rts th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby gran ti ng th e de fen da nt s’ m ot io n t o b ifu rcat e th e tr ia l, wh ic h a ll owe d Nat al it a III t o p res en t h er affi rm at iv e d efen se s b efo re Bl ue W at er p res en te d i ts cas e in ch ie f. Fed eral Ru le of Civ il Pro cedur e 4 2( b) sp eci fic al ly allo ws fo r th e b ifu rcat io n o f is su es at tria l.

“ Fo r co nv en ie nc e, to av oi d p reju di ce, o r to ex pe di te an d e co no m iz e, th e co urt m ay or de r a s ep arat e tr ia l o f on e o r m or e se pa rat e is su es , cla im s, cr os sc la im s, co un te rcl ai m s, o r th ird -p art y cla im s.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 42 (b ). In Har ri ng to n v . Cl eb urne Co un ty Boa rd

of Edu ca ti on , 25 1 F .3d93 5, 9 38 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ), we
no te d t ha t “ [Ru le ] 42 (b ) co nf ers bro addi sc ret io n o n t he di st ric t co urt i n thi s ar ea,

4pe rm it ti ng bi fu rcat io n m erel y ‘ in fur th eran ce o f co nv en ie nc e.’” Thus , we co nc lu de th atBlu e Water’s p ro cedur al cla im s ar e witho utm eri t. 2 Bl ue W at er b el ie ve s i t i s en ti tl edto cla im a pu re s al va ge awardon Nata li ta III b ecau se a Nata li taIII capt ai n a gr eedth atBlu e Water was so en ti tl edby sig ni ng a fo rm co nt ractpro vi si on pro vi di ng forsu ch anawardaft er t he res cu e eff ort
co nc lu de d. A p ur e sa lv ag e awardis m or e th an a pa ym en t fo r se rv ic es ren de red ; i t is “ a rewar d g iv enforpe ril ou s s erv ic es , vo lu nt ari ly rend ered , andas an in du cem en t t o s eam en an d o th ers to em ba rkin su ch un de rta ki ng s t o s av e li fe an d pr op erty .” Th e Bla ckw al l , 77 U.S. (10 W al l.) 1 , 14 , 19 L. Ed. 87 0 (1 86 9) . There are t hr ee el em en ts to a pu re s al va ge cla im : m ari ne pe ril ; s erv ic e v ol un ta ril y ren de redwhen no t re qu ire d b y du ty or co nt ract ; an d s uc ces s i n wh ol e o r in pa rt, wit h t he servi ces ren de redha vi ng co nt rib ut edto su ch su cces s. The Sa bi ne , 10 1 U.S. 38 4, 3 84 , 25 L. Ed. 98 2 (1 87 9)
. Whe n t he re i s a c on tra ctto un de rta ke a sa lv ag e se rv ic e o r to pro vi de so m e type o f se rv ic e to a di st res se d v es se l, t he re i s n o “ pu re s al va ge .” Se e B.V. Bure au W ijsmu ll er v. Uni te d Sta te s , 70 2 F .2d33 3 (2 d C ir. 1 98 3) . Rath er, i f th ere i s a Blue Water claims that the district c ourt did not g ive it the opportunity to be hear d on the 2 issue of bifurcation. The rec ord shows that afte r the defe ndants filed their motion to bifurcate, the district court held a hearing wher e it considere d Blue Water’s mem orandum in opposition to bifurca tion, in addition to hearing oral arguments on the i ssue of bifurcation. Thus, we conclude that this argument simil arly is without m erit.
5co nt ractbe twee n t he pa rti es , th en th e se rv ic es were re nd eredpu rs ua ntto th e

co nt ract , no t v ol un ta ril y . Fla gs hi p Ma ri ne Se rv . v. Belch er To wi ng Co
. , 96 6 F .2d 60 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) . “ The factth ata sh ip own er re qu es ts a sa lv ag e se rv ic e an d th atth e sa lv or s i n re sp on se furni sh it , st an di ng alo ne , [ho wev er] do es no t cr eat e an im pl ie d c on tra ctso as t o d efea t a s al va ge cla im .” For t Mye rs Sh el l & Dred gi ng Co . v. Bar

ge NBC 51 2 , 40 4 F .2d13 7, 1 39 (5t h C ir. 1 96 8)
. 3 Bl ue W at er ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin fin di ng a pr e-ex is ti ng ora l
co nt ractbe twee n B lu e Water an d Nat al it a III b ecau se th ere was in su ffi ci en t
ev id en ce t o s up po rt s uc h afin di ng . The d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t wh en th os e ab oa rdth e y ach t i nq ui redab ou t t he co stof B lu e Water’s s erv ic es , Blu e Water of fere d t o p ro vi de it s s erv ic es at alo wer h ou rly rate t ha n o ne it s co m pe ti to rs ha d of fere d, an d t ho se on th e y ach t ac cep te d t ha t h ou rly rate. Th e d is tri ctco urt
co nc lu de d t ha t Bl ue W at er’s s erv ic es were re nd eredpu rs ua ntto anora l ag reem en t, th us de feat in g acla im

forpu re s al va ge . The d is tri ctco urt re li edon th is co urt’s de ci si on in Fla gs hi

p Ma ri ne Se rv ic es , in whi ch a m ari ne servi ce co m pa ny sav eda tu gb oa t fr om

si nk in g a ndth en bro ug hta cl ai m forpu re s al va ge , whi ch th e d is tri ct

In Bonner v. City of

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc) , the Eleventh 3 Circuit a dopted as bindingprec edent a ll decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down befor e October 1, 1981
. 6co urt g ran te d. Se e Fla gs hi p Ma ri ne Se rv ic es , 96 6 F .2dat 6 03 . This co urt
rev ers edan d re m an de d, h ol di ng th atth e v erb al ex ch an ge be twee n t he cap ta in s o f th e tu gb oa t an d m ari ne servi ce co m pa ny creat eda va li d o ral ag reem en t tha t b arre d th e m ari ne servi ce co m

pa ny from

reco ve rin g a n a wardon a pu re s al va ge ba si s be cau se th e se rv ic es were n otvo lu nt ari ly rend ered
. Id
. at60 5– 06 . This co urt st at ed : Und er the factua l fi nd in gs m ad e b y th e d is tri ctco urt, an d i n l ig htof the ev id en ce fo un d i n t he reco rd , we agr ee t ha t t he re was no co nt ractto pay a gi ve n s um

forth e se rv ic es . . . ren de red ; n on et he le ss , we can no t ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th atth e se rv ic es . . . ren de redwere v ol un ta ry sa lv ag e se rv ic es . Cl earl y , [th e m ari ne servi ces co m pa ny] ha d n o i ni ti al du ty to co m e to [th e tu gb oa t]’ s as si st an ce. Yet , when [th e co m pa ny] arri ve d o n t he sce ne , th e ex ch an ge be twee n [t he bo at s’ res pe ct iv e cap ta in s] creat eda bi nd in g en ga ge m en t i n wh ic h [t he tu gb oa t] un de rto okto pa y [th e m ari ne servi ces co m pa ny] for it s s erv ic es , whet he r or

no t t ho se servi ces pro ve d s uc ces sf ul
. Id
. at60 5. Here, t he di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t t he re was anactua l o ral co nt ractbe twee n Bl ue W at er an d Nat al it a III b efo re t he servi ces be ga n. Th eref or e, Bl ue W at er was no t en ti tl edto a pu re s al va ge awardforth e se rv ic es itpro vi de d a fte r itha d a n ob li ga ti on to pe rfo rm

forNata li taIII. (R. 1 4 a t 2 2.) C on si de rin g the factua l fin di ng s o f th e d is tri ctco urt an d t he ev id en ce i n t he reco rd , th is co urt ag rees th at

7th ere was a co nt ractto pa y a gi ve n s um

forth e se rv ic es Blu e Water re nd ered
. Fu rth erm or e, ev en if the re was no t a l eg al co nt ractbe twee n the pa rti es , at t he ve ry le as t t he re was anora l ag reem en t t ha t re nd eredBlu e Water’s s erv ic es no t
vo lu nt ary. Se e Fla gs hi

p Ma ri ne Se rv ic es , 96 6 F .2dat 6 05 (ho ld in g t ha t t he ve rb al
ex ch an ge be twee n t he cap ta in s o f a tug bo atan d m ari ne servi ce co m pa ny creat eda va li d o ral ag reem en t t ha t b arre d the m ari ne servi ce co m pa ny from

reco ve rin g a n awardon a pu re s al va ge ba si s b ecau se th e se rv ic es were n otvo lu nt ari ly rend ered ). The di stric t co urt fo un d i n t he alt ern at iv e th atth e wri tt en co nt ractwas un en fo rceabl e b ecau se itwas c reat edun de r du res s. Th e se m in al cas e fo r is su es of
m ari ti m e dur es s i s Th e Elf ri da , 17 2 U.S. 1 86 , 19 S. Ct. 1 46 (18 98 ). In Th e Elf ri da , th e Supr em e Co urt i nd ic at edth ata sa lv ag e co nt ractwil l b e se t as id e if it
was “ co rrupt ly ent eredin to , or m ad e u nd er fraudul en t re pr es en ta ti on s, a c le ar
m is ta ke or s up pr es si on of i m po rta ntfact s, i n i m

m ed ia te da ng er t o t he sh ip , or un de r ot he r ci rcu m st an ces am ou nt in g t o c om pu ls io n, o r whe n t he ir e nf or cem en t
wou ldbe co nt rary to eq ui ty andgo odco ns ci en ce.” Th e Elf ri da , 17 2 U.S. at19 2, 19 S. Ct. at14 8. Th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t Nat al it a III h adno reas on ab le ch oi ce o th er t ha n t o s ig n t he co nt ract . The co urt fo un d t ha t t he fol lo win g fa ct s crea te d c irc um st an ces am ou nt in g t o c om pu ls io n:

8(1 ) Pri or to th e res cu e, Bl ue W at er d idno t d is cu ss wit h o r di sc lo se to Nata li taIII’s cap ta in s tha t i t i nt en de d t o t reatth e res cu e as a pu re s al va ge si tu at io n a ndth atitwou ldsee k c om pe ns at io n u nd er a p ur e sa lv ag e m et ho d; (2 ) Bl ue W at er h adad equa te ti m e u nd er t he cir cu m st an ces to pro vi de Nata li taIII t he sal va ge co nt ractpri orto un de rta ki ng th e sa lv ag e, an d B lu e W at er s ho ul d h av e p ro vi de d t he writ te n fo rm co nt ractaft er Nat al it a III’s cap ta in s as ke d abo utpape rwo rkan d t he m et ho d o f pa ym en t p rio r to th ei r as se ntto th e res cu e; (3 ) Bl ue W at er g av e Nat al it a III’s capt ai n t he op ti on of e it he r im m ed ia te ly si gn in g t he form

co nt ractor b ei ng ab an do ne d l at e in th e aft ern oo n i n a n a rea whe re re efs co nt in ue d t o c arry a peri l an d wh en th e d am ag e to th e y ach t was
un kn own ; (4 ) Bl ue W at er re pr es en te d t o Nat al it a III t ha t an ot he r to w andsal va ge co m pa ny was in cap ab le of p erfo rm in g t he sal va ge job at h an d. The di stric t co urt al so fou ndth atth e wri tt en co nt ractwas u ne nf or ceab le be cau se Blu e Water v io la te d p ub li c p ol ic y by vio la ti ng it s p erm itto op erat e. Blu e W at er o pe rat es it s co m

m erci al to win g a ndsal va ge ass is ta nc e b us in es s wi th in Bi sc ayne Nati on al Parkpu rs ua ntto a pe rm itcal le d aCo m m erci al Use Aut ho riz at io n. Th e p erm itpro vi de s t ha t Bl ue W at er m ay pro vi de ass is ta nc e to 9di sabl edve ss el s wh il e se rv in g a ndpro te ct in g p arkres ou rces . The d is tri ctco urt

fo un d tha t Bl ue W at er v io la te d t he term s o f it s p erm itbe cau se : A si gn edackno wled gm en t o f se rv ic es an d c ha rg es fro m th e v is it or[is ] requi redpri orto be in g p erfo rm ed . The s erv ic es an d i nt en t o f th is pro vi si on is to eli m in at e an d p rev en t d is ho ne stan d m is le ad in g b us in es s p ract ic es , pa rti cu la rly the act io n o f “ba itan d s wit ch ,” in fo rm in g t he cu st om er o f on e pr ic e an d s erv ic e b efo re the job an d t he n b il li ng th e cu st om er fo r m uc h m or e th an th e quo te d p ric e. A vi ol at io n o f th es e st an da rd s wi ll be co ns id eredto be a vi ol at io n o f th e te rm s o f th e p erm it
. (R. 1 4 a t 1 5.) The di stric t co urt fo un d t he se po li cy co ns id erat io ns esp eci al ly com pe ll in g gi ve n t ha t Bl ue W at er’s cl ai m is in equi ty, an d t he Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e cl ear th atitis ap pr op ria te to setasi de a sa lv ag e co nt ractif i t was , “ co rrupt ly ent ered in to , or m ad e u nd er fraudul en t re pr es en ta ti on s, a c le ar m is ta ke or s up pr es si on of im po rta ntfact s, i n i m

m ed ia te da ng er t o t he sh ip , or u nd er o th er ci rcu m st an ces
am ou nt in g t o c om

pu ls io n, o r whe n the ir e nf or cem en t wo ul d b e co nt rary to equi ty
an d g oo d c on sc ie nc e.” Th e Elf ri da , 17 2 U.S. at19 2, 1 9 S . Ct. 1 48 . Here, th e di st ric t co urt fo un d s pe ci fic co nduc t o n t he pa rt o f Bl ue W at er t ha t i t co ns id eredto be “ co nt rary to eq ui ty andgo odco ns ci en ce.” No th in g i n t he reco rdco nv in ces th is
co urt t ha t t he di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs were cl earl y erro ne ou s. We con cl ud e

10th eref

or e th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d n o re ve rs ib le erro r in de ci di ng no t t o en fo rce t he co nt ract . Inad di ti on to it s cl ai m

ag ai ns t Nat al it a III, Bl ue W at er b ro ug hta cl ai m ag ai ns t Sa nt am

Ins ur an ce, Nat al it a III’s u nd erwri te r. San ta m fil eda Mo ti on to Qua sh Serv ic e an d Di sm is s the Am en de d C om pl ai ntin th e d is tri ctco urt. The di st ric t co urt d idno t ru le on th e m ot io n anddi d n otad dr es s t hi s s ep arat e cl ai m be fo re cl os in g t he cas e aft er t he tri al . San ta m arg ue s t ha t i n o rd er t o re co ve r ag ai ns t Sa nt am , Blu e Water m us t fi rs t o bt ai n ajud gm en t ag ai ns t Sant am ’s in su red , Nata li taIII. Und er the law o f th is cir cu it , ho wev er, Bl ue W at er m ay ass ertan in de pe nd en t caus e o f act io n g ro un de d upo n t he be ne fitaccrui ng di rect ly to Sa nt am by virtu e o f Bl ue W at er’s s al va ge effo rts . Se e Cr es ci v. Bil lf is he r , 87 4 F .2d15 50 , 15 51 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (h ol di ng th atpl ai nt iff’s cla im ag ai ns t i ns ur er fo r sa lv ag e is
no t a c la im

un de r th e in su ran ce p ol ic y , bu t ra th er an in de pe nd en t caus e o f act io n gr ou nd edup on th e b en efi t ac cru in g d ire ct ly to t he in su rer b y vi rtu e o f pl ai nt iff’s
sa lv ag e eff

orts ). Becaus e Bl ue W at er m ay ha ve a vi ab le cla im

ag ai ns t Sa nt am un de r a p ecu ni ary be ne fitth eo ry , we REMAND Blu e Water’s cl ai m ag ai ns t San ta m forfur th er p ro ceed in gs by the di st ric t co urt. AFFIRMED a nd REMANDED.

11