Courts Continue to Uphold Robins Dry Dock Rule

Courts Continue to Uphold Robins Dry Dock Rule

By: Forrest Guedry

The well-known “Robins Dry Dock Rule” has been upheld yet again in the Southern District of New York Court’s decision in American Petroleum & Transport, Inc. v. City of New York, No. 12-4505-cv (902 F. Supp. 2d 466).  In 1927, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Robins Dry Dock & Repair v. Flint set precedent that has been faithfully followed by lower courts concerning economic damages not being awarded to a plaintiff without evidence of physical damage to their personal property.  In Robins Dry Dock, the Court rejected the notion that a time charterer should be entitled to damages suffered from lost profits that resulted from damage to the vessel’s propeller caused by a third-party. The Court reasoned that because the time charterer had no proprietary interest in the vessel, then he could not recover any economic damages.Here, the Second Circuit followed the rule in Robbins Dry Dock by denying the plaintiff’s request for economic damages absent any personal injury or physical damage.  This dispute arose when an un-opened drawbridge operated by the City of New York, prevented plaintiff, ("American"), from traveling freely along the Hutchinson River.  American alleged that the two and a half day delay resulted in nearly $30,000 worth of economic damages.  Further, American did not allege any physical injury or property damage.  In response to American’s claim for the alleged damages, the City of New York filed a motion to dismiss the claims based on the rule in Robins Dry Dock. Although American argued that the Robins Dry Dock rule should be limited to it facts, the court rejected this argument. Specially, the Second Circuit stated that this rule prohibits any recovery for economic losses caused by an unintentional maritime tort when there is no indication of any physical damage to the plaintiff’s property. Therefore, because American only alleged economic losses due to the drawbridge’s closure, not physical damage, the court granted the City of New York’s motion to dismiss American’s claim.