Opinion ID: 221861
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of Mediterranean and Tracer

Text: Applying Mediterranean and Tracer, we have no difficulty concluding that the present dispute is not arbitrable. The dispute in this case is based on the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. Once the M/V Cape Flattery ran aground, Cape Flattery was responsible for removal costs and damages under 33 U.S.C. § 2702. Cape Flattery was also liable for all damage to natural resources resulting from the grounding. Id. §§ 2701(32)(A), 2702(a), 2702(b)(2)(A). Cape Flattery could bring a civil action for contribution against any other person who is liable or potentially liable for the damage under this Act or another law under § 2709. Because Titan was a party rendering care, assistance, or advice in removing the vessel, Cape Flattery can hold Titan contributorily liable if Titan was grossly negligent. Id. § 1321(c)(4). Cape Flattery alleged in its complaint that Titan was grossly negligent, in violation of both Hawaii and general maritime law, in deciding to use submerged, rather than floating, tow lines, and that the submerged lines caused damage to the coral reef. Mediterranean established that under an arbitration agreement covering disputes arising under the agreement, only those disputes relating to the interpretation and performance of the contract itself are arbitrable. Mediterranean, 708 F.2d at 1464. Tracer similarly held that when a tort claim constitutes an independent wrong from any breach of the contract it does not require interpretation of the contract and is not arbitrable. Tracer, 42 F.3d at 1295. Tracer further clarified that a tort claim is not arbitrable just because it would not have arisen but for the parties' agreement. Id. The present dispute does not turn on an interpretation of any clause in the contract. As the district court noted, [t]he parties point to no Agreement provision that Defendant allegedly breachedthe Agreement is silent regarding what tow lines Defendant must use, how precisely Defendant must salve the Vessel, and whether Defendant must take precautions to prevent harm to the coral reef. Cape Flattery, 607 F.Supp.2d at 1190 (footnote omitted). Nor does the dispute turn on Titan's performance under the contract. Instead the dispute involves a tort claim based on Hawaii and maritime tort law, incorporated as part of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, and limited by that federal statute to grossly negligent acts. We therefore conclude that under the narrow interpretation of arising under in Mediterranean and Tracer, the present dispute is not arbitrable.