Opinion ID: 218972
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Loss of Use Damages

Text: Resolute argues the district court erred in awarding Oswalt damages for hotel charges he incurred while the fire damage to the CHUG was being repaired. The parties do not dispute the relevant facts, which the district court found as follows: At the time of the loss, Curtis Oswalt worked as a flight attendant for Southwest Airlines. His work assignments started and ended in Oakland, and he had to pay for hotels in Oakland at his own expense before and after each flight. To save this cost, he used the CHUG as a second home when working in Oakland, California in the winter months. When the loss occurred, the M/V CHUG was being readied to take to Oakland for the winter. Unable to use the CHUG as his residence, Curtis Oswalt incurred hotel expenses. Citing The Conqueror, 166 U.S. 110, 17 S.Ct. 510, 41 L.Ed. 937 (1897), Resolute contends that [l]oss of use damages are not recoverable for a pleasure craft and that Oswalt therefore cannot recover hotel fees he incurred when unable to use the CHUG, a pleasure yacht, as a second home. The Conqueror held that a wronged boat owner seeking recovery for loss of use of his boat must show a pecuniary loss, or at least a reasonable certainty of pecuniary loss, and not a mere inconvenience arising from an inability to use the vessel for the purposes of pleasure. 166 U.S. at 133, 17 S.Ct. 510. It therefore rejected a claim for damages for loss of use of a yacht that was designed for pleasure only, and[had] never been put to any other use. Id. at 112, 17 S.Ct. 510. This conclusion flowed from the Court's concern that the value of the lost recreational use claimed in that case, which was based on unsupported witness testimony, was too uncertain and conjectural to form a proper basis for estimation of damages due. Id. at 127, 17 S.Ct. 510. We later interpreted The Conqueror as establishing that, [u]nder federal maritime law loss of use of a private pleasure boat is not a compensable item of damages. Oppen v. Aetna Ins. Co., 485 F.2d 252, 257 (9th Cir.1973) (citing The Conqueror, 166 U.S. 110, 17 S.Ct. 510). [4] In this case, however, Oswalt sought to recover not for lost recreational use of his boat, as was the case in The Conqueror and Oppen, but for deprivation of the use of the CHUG to defray his work-related expenses. The loss of use damages awarded to Oswalt are both business-related and entirely nonspeculative; as the district court observed, the hotel charges Oswalt incurred are supported by extensive, uncontroverted documentation. We have never denied loss of use damages under such circumstances. Cf. Oppen, 485 F.2d at 257 (disallowing damages for interference with the plaintiffs' recreational use of their private pleasure boat[s] in the Santa Barbara Channel). The district court therefore correctly allowed Oswalt to recover hotel charges incurred while the CHUG was being repaired.