Court Opinion

ID: 9473978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:44:58.699021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:50.694875
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. In view of the petition’s suggestion that the panel opinion inadvertently creates “a brand new theory of recovery for negligent interference with a contract where physical damage occurs solely from the loss of anticipated contract benefits,” we take this opportunity to reemphasize the limited nature of the appeal and the narrowness of our holding.
Our discussion of the Robins Dry Dock/TESTBANK line of cases showed that the “pragmatic limitation upon the tort doctrine of foreseeability,” State of Louisiana, ex rel. Guste v. m/v TESTBANK, 752 F.2d 1019, at 1023 (5th Cir.1985), established by these cases, is inapplicable to the instant case because the plaintiff Consolidated unquestionably suffered physical harm to its own property. We further conclude that the mere existence of a contract between Texaco (whose property suffered the most immediate harm from the defendant’s dredging) and Consolidated does not create a legal bar to Consolidated’s claim against Bean for negligent dredging. We in no way intimated that Consolidated could recover for “negligent jinterference with contract.” Nor did we hold that summary judgment for the defendant would necessarily be improper on the facts of the instant case. Rather, we remanded because the district court expressly omitted to review the issue of foreseeability with regard to negligent dredging. We expressly declined to reach the question of “whether Consolidated’s claim of negligence would withstand scrutiny under a foreseeability test,” 772 F.2d at 1218 n. 2, and left the application of traditional tort principles, including foreseeability and the related concept of legal duty, for the trial court to determine on remand, at 1224.
Thus, the petition for rehearing is DENIED, and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35), the suggestion for rehearing en banc is DENIED.