3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: M17011-0001 

Claimant: 

Type of Claimant: Individual 

Type of Claim: Real or Personal Property 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $32,574.91 

BACKGROUND: 

On October 28, 2016, the T/V ATLANTIC RAIDER began to lean unexpectedly to the port side 

while transiting west of Blount Island, in Jacksonville, FL. In response, a crewman aboard the 

vessel began a transfer of fuel from the port tanks to the aft tanks. However, the listing became 

progressively worse, resulting in the sinking of the ATLANTIC RAIDER from the stern. The 

mate then made the decision to push the vessel to shore, and intentionally ground it onto the west 

bank of the St. Johns River. 

During this time, Coast Guard (CG) Sector Jacksonville received a call from the master of 

ATLANTIC RAIDER, notifying the USCG that the vessel was taking on water. No visible 

pollution was reported at that time. As a result, Sector Jacksonville opened Federal Project 

Number (FPN) M17011 to track Coast Guard indirect costs used to monitor the removal of 

petroleum products from the ATLANTIC RAIDER. The owner of the vessel hired Moran 

Environmental Recovery for all pollution removal operations. Approximately 26,000 gallons of 

diesel fuel were removed from the vessel, with a potential of approximately 1,000 gallons 

remaining. On November 18, 2016, the Atlantic Raider was towed and placed into dry dock to 

further assess the damage and causes of the incident.1

 The CG estimated that approximately 

2,000 gallons of fuel/oil on board the ATLANTIC RAIDER discharged into the waterway.2

CLAIM:

On March 22, 2017, , Esq. (Mr. ), on behalf of his client, 

 submitted documentation to the NPFC requesting reimbursement 

for Ms. loss of profits and earning capacity ($24,026.29), and real or personal 

property damage costs ($8,548.62), for a total sum certain of $32,574.91. Claimant notes it its

initial submission letter that it saved $200.00 in routine cleaning supplies because she did not 

have to rent out the vessels during that time frame.3 This reduces the total claim to $32,374.91. 

Claimant made presentment to the responsible party (RP), Gore Marine Transportation Co., by 

letter dated March 9, 2017. 

 

1 See USCG SITREP-POL 2 dated November 16, 2016. 2 See USCG FOSCR Statement Form dated January 31, 2017. 3

 See Anderson & Miller letter dated March 9, 2017, page 8.
4

APPLICABLE LAW: 

"Oil" is defined in relevant part, at 33 USC § 2701(23), to mean “oil of any kind or in any form, 

including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged 

spoil”.

Under 33 CFR 136.105(a) and 136.105(e)(6), the claimant bears the burden of providing to the 

NPFC, all evidence, information, and documentation deemed necessary by the Director, NPFC, 

to support the claim. 

Under 33 CFR 136.105(b) each claim must be in writing, for a sum certain for each category of 

uncompensated damages or removal costs resulting from an incident

Under 33 CFR 136.213(a) a claim for injury to, or economic losses resulting from the destruction 

of, real or personal property may be presented only by a claimant either owning or leasing the 

property. Any claim for loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due to injury to, 

destruction of, or loss of real or personal property must be included as subpart of the claim under 

this section and must include the proof required under § 136.233. 

Under 33 CFR 136.215(a) In addition to the requirements of Subparts A and B of this part, a 

claimant must establish—

(1) An ownership or leasehold interest in the property;

(2) That the property was injured or destroyed;

(3) The cost of repair or replacement; and

(4) The value of the property both before and after injury occurred.

(b) In addition, for each claim for economic loss resulting from destruction of real or personal 

property, the claimant must establish -

(1) That the property was not available for use and, if it had been, the value of that use;

(2) Whether or not substitute property was available and, if used, the costs thereof; and

(3) That the economic loss claimed was incurred as the result of the injury to or destruction 

of the property.

Under 33 CFR 136.217(a) the amount of compensation allowable for damaged property is the 

lesser of –

(1) Actual or estimated net cost of repairs necessary to restore the property to substantially 

the same condition which existed immediately before the damage;

(2) The difference between value of the property before and after the damage; or

(3) The replacement value
5

Compensation for economic loss resulting from the destruction of real or personal property may 

be allowed in an amount equal to the reasonable costs actually incurred for use of substitute 

commercial property or, if substitute commercial property was not reasonably available, in an 

amount equal to the net economic loss which resulted from not having use of the property. When 

substitute commercial property was reasonably available, but not used, allowable compensation 

for loss of use is limited to the cost of the substitute commercial property, or the property lost, 

whichever is less. Compensation for loss of use of noncommercial property is not allowable. (33 

CFR 136.217(b))

Under 33 CFR 136.217(c) compensation for a claim for loss of profits or impairment of earning 

capacity under § 136.213(b) is limited to that allowable under § 136.235.

A claim for loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due to the injury to, destruction of, 

or loss of real or personal property or natural resources may be presented by a claimant 

sustaining the loss or impairment. The claimant need not be the owner of the damaged property 

or resources to recover for lost profits or income. A claim for loss of profits or impairment of 

earning capacity that also involves a claim for injury to, or economic losses resulting from 

destruction of, real or personal property must be claimed under § 136.213. (33 CFR 136.231(ab)).

Under 33 CFR 136.233, in addition to the requirements of subparts A and B of this part, a 

claimant must establish the following:

(a) That real or personal property or natural resources have been injured, destroyed, or lost.

(b) That the claimant's income was reduced as a consequence of injury to, destruction of, or loss 

of the property or natural resources, and the amount of that reduction.

(c) The amount of the claimant's profits or earnings in comparable periods and during the period 

when the claimed loss or impairment was suffered, as established by income tax returns, 

financial statements, and similar documents. In addition, comparative figures for profits or 

earnings for the same or similar activities outside of the area affected by the incident also must 

be established.

(d) Whether alternative employment or business was available and undertaken and, if so, the 

amount of income received. All income that a claimant received as a result of the incident must 

be clearly indicated and any saved overhead and other normal expenses not incurred as a result 

of the incident must be established.

The amount of compensation allowable under 33 CFR 235 is limited to the actual net reduction 

or loss of earnings or profits suffered. Calculations for net reductions or losses must clearly 

reflect adjustments for -

(a) All income resulting from the incident;

(b) All income from alternative employment or business undertaken;

(c) Potential income from alternative employment or business not undertaken, but reasonably 

available;

(d) Any saved overhead or normal expenses not incurred as a result of the incident; and 

(e) State, local, and Federal taxes
6

NPFC DETERMINATION : 

This claim includes two types of damages; $8,548.62 for actual physical damage to the 

claimant’s property, which may be compensable under OPA as Real and Personal Property 

damage and $24,026.29 in alleged loss of profits due to the spill incident. Under the claims 

regulations located at 33 CFR 136.231(a-b) a claim for loss of profits or impairment of earning 

capacity that also involves a claim for injury to, or economic losses resulting from destruction of, 

real or personal property must be claimed under § 136.213. Therefore, both of these damages 

are under a Real and Personal Property damage claim.

The NPFC completed a thorough review of all documents provided by the claimant, while also 

conducting research on our own, including reaching out to the Federal On-Scene Coordinator 

Representative (FOSCR) to better understand the full impact of the spill. The record is clear that 

oil entered and impacted the St. Johns River and may have impacted the marina where claimant’s 

business is located. However, the evidence provided by the claimant to document the impact of 

damage to the vessels and loss of income because of the spill is not persuasive and does not 

allow the NPFC to provide compensation. The evidence and our findings are discussed below. 

Real or Personal Property: 

The claim submission states that Ms. owns Coastal Boat and Trailer Rentals, a 

charter boat company located in Jacksonville, FL. At the time of the incident, Ms. 

alleges that she charters three (3) boats that were docked at the Dames Point Marina, located 

along the Blount Island Channel, a part of the St. Johns River running west of Blount Island. 

Claimant asserts that all 3 boats were damaged as a result of oil sheen present around the marina. 

The damages being claimed include: the cost of cleaning supplies, the cost to lift and block, the 

cost to repaint, the cost to repair and move a boat to a different location, and labor costs for 

cleaning the boats. 

Claimant’s sum certain, $8,548.62, is based on the following summary of damages: 

Boat Name Description Costs Comments

Sand Piper Linens $100.00

Sand Piper Cleaning Supplies $500.00

Sand Piper Time Spent Cleaning $1,400.00 $25/hour x 8 hours x 

7 days

Sea Ray Cleaning Supplies $44.27

Sea Ray Time Spent Cleaning $1,400.00 $25/hour x 8 hours x 

7 days

Racquel Cleaning Supplies $44.27

Racquel Time Spent Cleaning $1,400.00 $25/hour x 8 hours x 

7 days

Sand Piper Cost to Lift Boat and 

Block

$335.00

Sand Piper Cost to Repaint 

Bottom

$200.00

Sea Ray Bottom Paint $288.84
7

Sea Ray Propellers $247.00

Sea Ray Lift $604.55

Sea Ray Oil/Fuel Filters, Belts $133.23

Sea Ray Hoses $291.72

Sea Ray Misc. Parts $119.88

Sea Ray Moving Boat $546.47

Racquel Bottom Paint $288.84

Racquel Lift $604.55

Total Claimed: $8,548.62

NPFC Request for Additional Information

The NPFC reviewed claimant’s submission, which contained a discussion of the spill, loss 

amounts and some black and white photographs of what appeared to be sorbents in the water, 

and dirty, torn boat seats. The NPFC requested additional information on June 13, 2017.4

 

Specific to the claimant’s real and personal property claim, the NPFC requested the following 

documents: Proof of ownership of the allegedly damaged vessels, business licenses, boat 

registrations, Coast Guard certificates and records, and state certificates allowing the boats to be 

operated as marine passenger vessels. The NPFC also requested proof that the oil spill damaged 

the vessels, including documentation demonstrating the condition of the boats prior to the spill 

and after they were damaged, photographs of the boats before the damage, while damaged and 

after the damage was removed. We requested proof of the cost to lift, block and repaint the 

bottom of the boats, receipts for claimed linens, and cleaning costs and evidence showing why 

such extensive cleaning efforts were performed, In order to document claimed hourly wages, the 

NPFC requested payroll records documenting the hourly rate of $25.00 an hour as the claimed 

cost of time spent cleaning both the Sea Ray and the Sand Piper. Concerning the movement of 

the Sea Ray to another marina, the NPFC requested receipts and documentation relating to this 

effort, including financial documentation to prove the $392.40 difference in rent for the three 

month period the boat was at the other marina and receipts and evidence explaining why the Sea 

Ray required propeller,engine work and parts. The NPFC requested evidence that oil in the 

water became a mist that entered the interior surfaces of the boats. We also requested the 

claimant provide the net cost of repair necessary to restore the property to substantially the same 

condition which existed immediately before the damage, the value of the property before and 

after the damage for each vessel or the replacement value. 

On July 28, 2017, the NPFC received a response to its request for additional information via 

letter from Mr. dated July 20, 2017. On behalf of Ms. Mr. submitted 

documents and photographs, including vessel registrations, titles, insurance documents, invoices, 

and receipts. 

NPFC Analysis of Real and Personal Property Loss

Claimant’s request for reimbursement of the real and personal property claim relates to actual 

physical damage to its vessels and contents. Under 33 CFR 136.215(a)(2) a claimant must 

 

4 See email from Mr. , NPFC, to , Esq., dated June 13, 2017.
8

establish that the property was injured or destroyed. And 33 CFR 136..215(b)(3) requires that the 

economic loss claimed was incurred as the result of the injury to or destruction of the property. 

To satisfy these regulations, the NPFC requested proof that the oil spill damaged the vessels, 

because the few photos that were provided in the initial claim submission were black and white 

and unclear. We also requested the claimant demonstrate the condition of the boats prior to the 

spill and after they were damaged, including photographs of the boats before the damage, while 

damaged and after the damage was removed. Claimant provided photographs that allegedly 

documented the boats before, during and after the spill.5 The NPFC’s review of the photographs 

finds many pictures of oil in the water. The location of these pictures is unknown. There is only 

one picture that may be related to a vessel in this claim, the Racquel. The picture shows the stern 

of a vessel with the word “Rac....” written across it. There appears to be oil in the water, but no 

damage to the vessel is noted. The claimant’s houseboat may also be pictured, but it is unknown 

since no name is attached and no oiling of the vessel is identified. Claimant provided several 

pictures of the interior of what appears to be a couple of vessels. There are some grease/oil stains 

noted on the seats in some of these pictures. However, it is unknown the condition of the seats 

just prior to the spill. Therefore, the NPFC cannot determine the damage caused by the spill. 

The NPFC finds the claimant failed to provide evidence that the three vessels claimed were 

damaged by the oil spill. Claimant did not provide pictures of each vessel’s condition prior to the 

spill, during the spill and after the damage was removed as requested. 

The NPFC finds the claimed costs of $8,548.62 denied.6 Beause actual physical damage to each 

vessel due to the spill has not been proven, the underlying costs associated with this claim are 

denied. If the claimant requests reconsideration of its claim, it will need to provide clear pictures 

of each vessel just prior to the spill and after the damage has occurred, which note physical oiling 

due to this incident. 

Additionally, while reviewing the underlying costs of this portion of the claim, the NPFC notes 

there is no evidence of physical oiling of the linens, which could have been washed instead of 

being thrown away. Also, any claimed costs for cleaning time would also need to be clearly 

documented with contact names of people who helped clean the vessels along with receipts of 

payment. 

Loss of Profits & Earning Capacity: 

Claimant asserts that her charter boat company, Coastal Boat and Trailer Rentals, suffered a loss 

of profits and earning capacity as a direct result of the ATLANTIC RAIDER spill incident. 

Specifically, at the time of the spill incident, Ms. offered two boats for rent, the Sand 

Piper (a houseboat) and the Sea Ray.7 Ms. alleges that the Sand Piper was booked 

 

5 See Anderson & Miller letter dated July 20, 2017, page 3, number 11.

6 If claimant comes back on reconsideration of the claim, the claimed $1,338.30 for moving the Sea Ray, and the 

costs of associated parts including propellers, oil filters, hoses, belts and other misc parts required to get the vessel 

underway would be more appropriately included in the loss of profits portion of the claim below, since the costs are 

not incurred because of the damage to the vessel.

7 See page 3 of theletter from Mr. , Esq. to Gore Marine Transportation Co., RP, dated March 9,

2017.
9

on the night of the spill incident at a cost of $250.00 per night. “The Sea Ray was also booked 

that night and the next night at a cost of $129/night.”8 Claimant claims that due to the “horrid 

smell” resulting from oil present near the marina, guests arrived and immediately canceled their 

reservations. This is claimed to have resulted in additional cancellations for the remaining six 

(6) booked nights. As evidence for the claim, Claimant submitted several black and white 

photographs reportedly showing oil present in the water and damages sustained to the rental 

boats. Unfortunately, the initial photographs provided to the NPFC were unclear and of low 

quality. The Claimant asserts that “Due to the property damage and the persistent smell at the 

marina, Ms. has not been able to rent the Sand Piper since this incident.”9

 

Claimant alleges that it lost $2,532.00 in income for the Sand Piper and Sea Ray from 10/28-

11/5/2016, which occurred during the week of the annual Florida/Georgia football game. 

Claimant is also seeking $12,742.86 in lost rent for the Sand Piper for eight (8) weekend nights 

occurring between November 6 through December 1, 2016 (8 weekend nights x $200.00 per 

weekend night for a total of $1,600.00). Additionally, the $12,742.86 includes 63 weekday 

nights at a daily rate of $150.00 per weekday night and 26 weekend nights at a rate of $200.00 

per weekend night. 

Claimant is requesting $4,328.57 in “Future Lost Rent” for the Sand Piper.10 Claimant lists 23 

weekday nights at the rate of $150.00 per weekday night and 8 weekend nights at the rate of 

$200.00 per weekend night, for a total of $4,328.57. Claimant asserts that “The lost rent 

damages are continuing in nature” and that the smell associated with the spill incident became 

dramatically worse. 

Finally, claimant asserts that due to oil present at the marina, the Sea Ray had to be moved to a 

separate marina located in downtown Jacksonville, FL, where she was unable to find a renter 

until December 11, 2016. Claimant is seeking the loss of rental income for 30 weekday nights 

and 10 weekend nights at a nightly rate of $129.00, totaling $4,422.86. 

NPFC Request for Additional Information:

Upon review of the claim submission, the NPFC contacted Mr. , requesting additional 

information in support of their request for reimbursement.11 Specifically, the NPFC requested 

the following documents: Proof of ownership, business licenses, boat registrations, Coast Guard 

certificates and records, sales brochures and advertisements, rental and/or charter agreements, 

scheduling/booking records, executed rental/charter agreements, contact information for 

customers, proof of cancellations, proof of damages to vessels, receipts for damaged items and 

costs related to the movement of the Sea Ray, payroll records, financial documentation for rent 

differences, evidence of the damaged propeller/engine, financial records for comparable periods 

before and after the incident; several months before and after the spill and for similar periods in 

previous years. Finally, as the claimant claims that the odor continued into March of 2017, but 

 

8 Id. 9 Id. 10 See page 5 of the letter from Mr. , Esq. to Gore Marine Transportation Co., RP, dated March 9, 

2017.

11 See email from Mr. , NPFC, to , Esq., dated June 13, 2017.
10

Coast Guard records indicate that the vessel was towed away on November 18, 2016, the NPFC 

requested the claimant explain how the incident continued to smell and cause headaches for 

months even though the vessel had been removed and the oil collected. 

On July 28, 2017, the NPFC received a response to its request for additional information via 

letter from Mr. dated July 20, 2017. On behalf of Ms. Mr. submitted 

numerous documents and photographs, including vessel registrations, titles, insurance 

documents, rental history, invoices, and receipts. 

NPFC Analysis of Loss of Profits

The NPFC finds claimant’s main argument for the claimed loss of profits is the smell in the 

marina that accompanied the oil spill. Claimant argues that the smell turned away customers who 

had already booked the Sea Ray and Sandpiper while also impacting earnings after the spill was 

cleaned up. As evidence of the smell, claimant submitted a statement dated July 25, 2017, from 

Ms. (Ms. ), an employee of the Dames Point Marina Bar. Ms. 

states:

My name is and I frequent the Dames Point Marina. I was 

working at the Dames Point Marina Bar which is part of the Marina prior to, 

during, and after the oil spill. During the time of and after the oil spill on October 

28, 2016, there was often a terrible stench in the air of fuel oil which gave me, and 

numerous patrons of the bar, a headache along with burning eyes. This continued 

extensively for several weeks and lingered for several months. The stench would 

resurface every time it would rain. After a while, I became used to the smell but 

customers would come in and ask what the smell was that they were noticing. 

This did not help business. 

The NPFC reached out to the USCG Sector Jacksonville Federal On-Scene Coordinator 

Representative (FOSCR), MST1 (MST1 ), specifically to address the 

scope of the spill, and the probability of an odor lingering in the air due to the spill incident. 

MST1 reported that some sheen might have entered the marina, but any oil that got on 

the hulls would likely have washed off during the tide cycles or with minimal cleaning. MST1 

 also stated that he received no reports of anyone getting sick or being taken to the 

hospital from either the marina or the response site. MST1 stated that no responders, 

who were working in close proximity to the oil became ill due to any fumes or odor. The FOSCR 

also stated that the spill site was located a couple of hundred yards north of the Dames Point 

Marina. 12 

The NPFC finds the Coast Guard FOSCR statement significantly reduces the claimed impact to 

the marina, regarding both smell and oil. Additionally, as discussed below, claimant failed to 

provide evidence of a loss of profit or earning capacity through its financials provided. 

33 CFR 136.233(c) requires that the amount of the claimant’s profits or earnings in comparable 

periods and during the period when the claimed loss or impairment was suffered, must be 

 

12 See NPFC phone record between Mr. , NPFC, and MST1 , USCG FOSCR, dated June 9, 

2017.
11

established by income tax returns, financial statements, and similar documents. In addition, 

comparative figures for profits or earnings for the same or similar activities outside of the area 

affected by the incident also must be established. 

The NPFC reviewed all of the financial documents provided by the claimant. They included a 

VRBO booking from February 14-17, 2017 for $580.87, an Airbnb “paid out” document totaling 

$7437 with a handwritten note at the top of the page stating “Jan 1st-Apr 20th earnings”, an 

Airbnb statement page with “pending payouts: $1488”, a VRBO booking from May 4-7, 2017 

totaling $711.19, a VRBO booking from May 25-29, 2017 for $670.26, and two pages of 

spreadsheet data with 50 entries intermittently dated from 12/12/16 through 4/29/2017. This data 

appears to contain reservation confirmations during this date range. 

The NPFC does not find the financial documents claimant provided as evidence of a loss of 

profits convincing. The NPFC requested claimant provide proof that clients cancelled their 

bookings due to the oil spill through rental agreements and names, addresses and phone numbers. 

Claimant could not provide any of this information, stating that AirBNB deletes these entries 

when clients cancel reservations, and claimant has no way of contacting the clients from that 

point on.13 Additionally, the spreadsheet data provided is not comparable by either date or 

location. The reservation documents do not include documents related to vessel rental records 

for the Dames Point Marina, where the vessels are claimed to be docked at the time of the spill 

incident. Also, there is no evidence of which vessel is being rented. Finally, claimant failed to 

provide financial records documenting the rental history of its three vessels prior to the spill and

during the oil spill incident time period in other years. 

The claimant failed to comply with 33 CFR 136.233 (c). They did not prove a loss of profit or 

earning capacity during the spill incident by providing comparable income tax returns, financial 

statements and similar documents prior to the spill incident, during the incident and after the spill 

in 2016 and other comparable years. If the claimant comes back in on reconsideration of its 

claim, these documents will need to be provided. In addition, if continuing to be claimed, proof 

of cancellation of guests during the spill incident will need to be proven. Additionally, it appears 

that these vessels were going through overhauls throughout the time period surrounding the oil 

spill. Evidence of each vessel’s maintenance schedule will need to be provided to compare with 

the rental history. 

This claim is denied in its entirety. 

AMOUNT: $0.00

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 9/18/2017 

Supervisor Action: Denial Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: 

 

13 See Anderson & Miller letter dated July 20, 2017, page 3, items 8-10.