United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 92-3943

Summary Calendar.

IMTT-GRETNA, Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT E. LEE SS, etc., et al., Defendants.

BP NORTH AMERICA PETROLEUM, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

The ROBERT E. LEE SS, her engines, tackle, apparel and furniture, in rem; Waterman

Steamship Corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellees,

and

Midland Enterprises, Inc., in personam, Third Party Defendant-Appellee.

June 25, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge:

BP North America Petrole um ("BP NAP"), the appellant, sued for economic damages because

it was unable to use a leased berth due to a collision. The district court granted summary judgment

in favor of appellees SS Robert E. Lee ("SS Lee"), Waterman Steamship Corporati on ("Waterman"),

International Shipholding Corporati on ("ISC") an d Midland Enterprises, Inc. ("Midland"). Upon

review, we affirm the summary judgment.

FACTS

On January 24, 1991, the SS Lee left New Orleans and proceeded upriver so that it could turn

around in a wider area. It collided with t he International Matex Tank Terminal ("IMTT")-Gretna

dock facilit

y near the Mile 97 area of the Mississippi River as it was executing this U-turn on its way

downriver. The dock did not become fully operational for four months. IMTT-Gretna sued the SS

Lee and its owner and operator, Waterman and ISC. The defendants in turn filed a third party claimagainst Midland, the owner of the MV Gayle. The defendants claimed that the actions of the MV

Gayle contributed to the collision. Midland cross-claimed against Waterman seeking indemnification

and contribution.

T hat suit was combined with the instant claim of BP NAP, a lessee of part of the dock

facilit ies. IMTT-Gretna eventually settled with the original defendants. The defendants all submitted

motions for summary judgment against the remaining claim of BP NAP. The district court granted

summary judgment in favor of the defendants due to BP NAP's lack of a proprietary interest. The

district court further ruled that marit ime law preempted any remaining state claim. The claims against

all defenda nt s, including third-party defendant Midland, were dismissed on October 7, 1992. BP

NAP filed a timely appeal on November 2, 1992.

ANALYSIS

I. Propriety Interest Necessary

The district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants because of the

appellant's lack of a proprietary interest. The long established requirement of ownership in order to

validly claim against a tortfeasor in admiralty was clearly enunciated by Ju s tice Holmes in Robins

Drydock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303, 307-9, 48 S.Ct. 134, 134-5, 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927). A

tortfeasor is liable only to the owner of the dock and he has no responsibility to a third party lessee.

This policy was put in place to prevent numerous claims of ec onomic damage from parties the

tortfeasor did not know he owed any duty to. "[N]o authority need be cited to show that, as a

general rule, at least, a tort to the person or property of one man does not make the tort-feasor liable

to another merely because the injured person was under a contract with that other, unknown to the

doer of the wrong." I

d. at 309, 48 S.Ct. at 135. The SS Lee di d not know of any contracts the

owner, IMTT-Gretna, might have had. The dock owner was the only one who suffered any physical

damage. The BP NAP claim is solely for economic damages due to its inability to use the berth it had

leased from the owner.

The Fifth Circuit adhered to the Supreme Court ruling in its en banc opinion in Louisiana ex

rel. G uste v. M/V Testbank, 752 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 903, 106 S.Ct.3271, 91 L.Ed.2d 562 (1986). "This circuit has consistently refused to allow recovery for economic

loss absent physical damage to a proprietary interest." I d. 752 F.2d at 1024. "In conclusion, having

reexamined the history and central purpose of the doctrine of Robins Dry Dock as developed in this

circuit, we remain committed to its teaching." I d., 752 F.2d at 1032. This bright line rule serves as

notice to non owners that they cannot claim damages in marit ime collisions. "Denying recovery for

pure economic losses is a pragmatic limitation on the doctrine of foreseeability, a limitation we find

to be both workable and useful." Id.

The appellant, fully appreciating the roadblocks set by Robins and Testbank, argues at length

that it has a proprietary interest in the dock. BB NAP argues that only their products were allowed

in the pipelines they leased and that they had preferential docking rights at the damaged berth. The

Fifth Circuit states t hat t he requirements for proprietary interest are actual possession or control,

responsibility for repair and responsibility for maintenance. T

exas Eastern Trans. v. McMoran

Offshore Explor., 877 F.2d 1214, 1225 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 937, 110 S.Ct. 332, 107

L.Ed.2d 321 (1989). BP NAP fails to meet any of the criteria. It certainly did not own any of the

property and IMTT-Gretna maintained the right to refuse BP NAP access to the leased pipelines if

it felt that the liquids being pumped could be harmful to others or to the pipeline. The appellant's use

of the dock and pipelines was valid only for the term of the lease. BP NAP did not have control of

the property

. It did not repair or had the responsibility to repair the damage. It did not station any

employees at the dock so it clearly did not maintain the facilit y. The district court correctly found

that no issue of proprietary interest existed that could have prev ent ed t he granting of summary

judgment against BP NAP.

II. Maritime Law

Preempts State Cause of Action

The appellant argues that they can still sue for economic damages in state court separate from

admiralty law. We disagree. Maritime law must maintain its uniformity and it preempts state law

when it is contradi ctory to marit ime law's purpose. J

. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc. v. Vessel Morning

Star, 457 F.2d 815, 818 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 948, 93 S.Ct. 271, 34 L.Ed.2d

218 (1972). The court stated:Although state law may occasionally be utilized to fill the gaps in an incomplete and less than

perfect marit ime system it cannot be employed to contravene an Act of Congress, to prejudice

the characteristic features of the marit ime law or to disrupt the harmony it strives to bring to

international and interstate relations.

Id. 457 F.2d at 818. Maritime law specifically denies recovery to non proprietors for economic

damages. To allow state law to supply a remedy when one is denied in admiralty would serve only

to circumvent the maritime law's jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit stated in Testbank:

Indeed the federal interest in protecting marit ime comm erce is often best served by the

establishment of uniform rules of conduct. The R obins rule has proved to be a workable and

useful tool in our marit ime jurisprudence. To permit recovery here on state law grounds

would undermine the principles we seek to preserve today.

Id., 752 F.2d at 1032. Therefore, state law does not supply an alternative remedy to BP NAP when

its claim was already denied in its proper maritime jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

We find that there exists no t riable issues that would invalidate summary judgment for the

appellees. For the above stated reasons, we

AFFIRM.