Opinion ID: 74395
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Express's Entitlement to Fees

Text: Because this case involves the interpretation and construction of a bareboat charter agreement, this case arises in admiralty; and we apply the general maritime law. See Sea Lane Bahamas, Ltd. v. Europa Cruises Corp., 188 F.3d 1317, 1320 (11th Cir.1999); Atlantic Lines, Ltd. v. Narwhal, Ltd., 514 F.2d 726, 731 (5th Cir.1975). A party is not entitled to attorney's fees in an admiralty case unless fees are statutorily or contractually authorized. See Galveston County Navigation Dist. v. Hopson Towing Co., 92 F.3d 353, 356 (5th Cir.1996). In this case, a specific contractual provision allows for the recovery of attorney's fees as damages for breach of the charter. Paragraph 35 of the charter said: Damages for breach of this Charter shall include all provable damages, and all reasonable costs, disbursements and attorney's fees incurred by the Owner or the Charterer in any action or proceeding to enforce any rights under this Charter. 4 Coastal argues that the court erred in finding that Express was entitled to attorney's fees. Coastal contends that, because it recovered $39,897.32 for lubricants and fuel, the court erred when it concluded that Express was the prevailing party. Put differently, Coastal argues that, because both parties partially prevailed, neither party was entitled to attorney's fees. Express argues that not only did it prevail on its claim for charter hire, it also prevailed on the central issue in the litigation: who was entitled to the disputed insurance proceeds. And, Express points out that, even though Coastal recovered some money for lubricants and fuel left on board the vessel, it did not have a net recovery. Citing Florida case law, Express argues that it was the prevailing party and that it was therefore entitled to attorney's fees under the charter agreement. General maritime law is federal law. See World Tanker Carriers Corp. v. MV Ya Mawlaya, 99 F.3d 717, 723 (5th Cir.1996). But, when neither statutory nor judicially created maritime principles provide an answer to a specific legal question, courts may apply state law provided that the application of state law does not frustrate national interests in having uniformity in admiralty law. See Steelmet, Inc. v. Caribe Towing Corp., 779 F.2d 1485, 1488 (11th Cir.1986) (One must identify the state law involved and determine whether there is an admiralty principle with which the state law conflicts, and, if there is no such admiralty principle, consideration must be given to whether such an admiralty rule should be fashioned. If none is to be fashioned, the state rule should be followed.); Palestina v. Fernandez, 701 F.2d 438, 439 (5th Cir.1983)([W]here there is no uniform federal rule, 'even though admiralty suits are governed by federal substantive and procedural law, courts applying maritime law may adopt state law by express or implied reference or by virtue of the interstitial nature of federal law.' )(quoting Baggett v. Richardson, 473 F.2d 863, 864 (5th Cir.1973)); see also Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 310, 75 S.Ct. 368, 99 L.Ed. 337 (1955); Aasma v. American S.S. Owners Mut. Protection and Indem. Ass'n, 95 F.3d 400 (6th Cir.1996). 5 As applied to this case, the parties do not cite to—and we have not found—federal statutes or general maritime cases which provide an answer to the question of whether Coastal's victory on its claim for fuel and lubricants precludes Express from being held entitled to an award of attorney's fees under the contract. Express, however, cites to Florida cases for the proposition that the party entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to the terms of a contractual provision is the party who has won on the significant issues in the litigation. Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So.2d 807, 810 (Fla.1992) ([T]he fairest test to determine who is the prevailing party is to allow the trial judge to determine from the record which party has in fact prevailed on the significant issues tried before the court.). And, whether a party received a net judgment, while not the determinative factor, is a significant factor in determining whether a party prevailed. See Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626 So.2d 1360, 1363 (Fla.1993). We think that this issue is not the kind of issue that calls for us to create a uniform national rule in admiralty. This case is not one which affects the interests concerned with shipping in its national and international aspects. See Wilburn, 75 S.Ct. at 375 (Frankfurter, J. concurring). This case concerns attorney's fees and whether the contractual provision which provides for attorney's fees should be construed to allow the party that was successful on all but one minor issue to recover attorney's fees. Nothing particularly maritime in nature sticks out about this issue, see Aasma, 95 F.3d at 404, so we look to Florida law for guidance.1 The court said that it found Express to be entitled to fees because Express had prevailed on most of its claims filed in this action. Upon the completion of the litigation, Express was declared entitled to disputed funds in the amount of $1,650,000 and was also entitled to $59,500 in additional charter hire. Plaintiff was only held entitled to $38,897.32 for fuels and lubricants that had been left on board the vessel. 1 This course is particularly appropriate here: the parties agreed in their pretrial statement that both Florida law and general maritime law would apply. Also, in their briefs, both parties rely upon Florida law and do not contend that some other state law should apply. 6 Express clearly prevailed on the significant issue tried before the court, and the court's decision to award Express attorney's fees was no error. See Moritz, 604 So.2d at 810.