Arco Pipeline Co., in No. 82-1186 v. Ss Trade Star, Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, Etc., & Any & All Persons Having Interest Therein in Rem, & Trade Star, in Personam, & Tug Tanda 12, Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, Etc. & Any & All Persons Having Any Interest in Rem, & Taylor & Anderson Towing & Lighterage Co., as Owner of the Tug Tanda 12, in Personam, & Tug Donal G. McAllister Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, Etc. & Any & All Persons Having Interest Therein, in Rem, & McAllister Bros., Inc. As Owners of the Tug Donal G. McAllister in Personam v. Atl. Richfield Co., Fort Mifflin Marine Terminal, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101, Third Party Trade Oil Co., S.A., in No. 82-1199, 693 F.2d 280 (3rd Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Arco Pipeline Co., in No. 82-1186 v. Ss Trade Star, Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, Etc., & Any & All Persons Having Interest Therein in Rem, & Trade Star, in Personam, & Tug Tanda 12, Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, Etc. & Any & All Persons Having Any Interest in Rem, & Taylor & Anderson Towing & Lighterage Co., as Owner of the Tug Tanda 12, in Personam, & Tug Donal G. McAllister Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, Etc. & Any & All Persons Having Interest Therein, in Rem, & McAllister Bros., Inc. As Owners of the Tug Donal G. McAllister in Personam v. Atl. Richfield Co., Fort Mifflin Marine Terminal, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101, Third Party Trade Oil Co., S.A., in No. 82-1199, 693 F.2d 280 (3rd Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: NEWTON v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE (pawd, 2022-03-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) NEWTON v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE
W.D. Pa. · 2022 · confidence medium
Sales, Inc., 789 F.2d 253 , 259 (3d Cir. 1986); Arco Pipeline Co. v. SS Trade Star, 693 F.2d 280, 281 (3d Cir. 1982). 101.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) American Milling Co. v. Brennan Marine, Inc.
8th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
Prejudgment interest serves “to reimburse the claimant for the loss of the use of its investment or its funds from the time of the loss until judgment is entered.” Arco Pipeline Co. v. SS Trade Star, 693 F.2d 280, 281 (3d Cir.1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fleming Steel Co. v. W.M. Schlosser Co.
3rd Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Arco Pipeline Co. v. SS Trade Star, 693 F.2d 280, 280-81 (3d Cir.1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fleming Steel Co. v. W.M. Schlosser Co.
3rd Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Arco Pipeline Co. v. SS Trade Star, 693 F.2d 280, 280-81 (3d Cir.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John D. Starceski, at No. 94-3208 v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, at No. 94-3182 (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
We have also recognized that the purpose of an award of pre-judgment interest is " 'to reimburse the claimant for the loss of the use of its investment or its funds from the time of the loss until judgment is entered.' " Berndt v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc., 789 F.2d 253, 259 (3d Cir.1986) (quoting Arco Pipeline Co. v. SS Trade Star, 693 F.2d 280, 281 (3d Cir.1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Starceski v. Westinghouse
3rd Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
We have also recognized that the purpose of an award of pre-judgment interest is "'to reimburse the claimant for the loss of the use of its investment or its funds from the time of the loss until judgment is entered.'" Berndt v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc., 789 F.2d 253, 259 (3d Cir. 1986) (quoting Arco Pipeline Co. v. SS Trade Star, 693 F.2d 280, 281 (3d Cir. 1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Young v. Lukens Steel Co.
E.D. Pa. · 1994 · confidence medium
See Gelof v. Papineau, 829 F.2d 452 (3d Cir.1987); Berndt v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc., 789 F.2d 253, 259 (3d Cir.1986); Wilson v. S & L Acquisition Co., L.P., 940 F.2d 1429, 1435 (11th Cir.1991); E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 728 F.Supp. 1167, 1169 (W.D.Pa.1989). “‘The purpose of prejudgment interest is to reimburse the claimant for the loss of the use of the its investment or its funds from the time of loss to the time of judgment.’ ” Berndt, 789 F.2d at 259 (quoting ARCO Pipeline Co. v. SS Trade Star, 693 F.2d 280, 281 (3d Cir.1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. New Castle County
D. Del. · 1986 · confidence medium
The function of prejudgment interest is “to reimburse the claimant for the loss of the use of its investment or its funds from the time of the loss until judgment is entered.” Ber ndt v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales Inc., 789 F.2d 253, 259 (3d Cir.1986) (quoting Arco Pipeline Co. v. SS Trade Star, 693 F.2d 280, 281 (3d Cir.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Evan Lee Deakle, Jr. v. John E. Graham & Sons, a Corp. M/v Clara G., Her Engines, Hull, Tackle, Cargo and Appurtenances Thereof
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See In re Complaint of Bankers Trust Co., 658 F.2d 103 , 112 (3d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 961 , 102 S.Ct. 2038 , 72 L.Ed.2d 485 (1982); Arco Pipeline Co. v. SS Trade Star, 693 F.2d 280, 281 (3d Cir. 1982).
discussed Cited "see" In Re WL Bradley Co., Inc.
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Arco Pipeline Co. v. SS Trade Star, 693 F.2d 280 (3d Cir.1982) (purpose of prejudgment interest is to reimburse the claimant for the loss of the use of its funds from the time of the loss until the entry of judgment).
cited Cited "see" Dravo Mechling Corp. v. Standard Terminals, Inc.
W.D. Pa. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arco Pipeline Co. v. SS Trade Star, 693 F.2d 280 (3d Cir.1982).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Eshelman v. Agere Systems, Inc.
3rd Cir. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Prejudgment interest “serves to compensate a plaintiff for the loss of the use of money that the plaintiff otherwise would have earned had he not been unjustly discharged.” Booker v. Taylor Milk Co., 64 F.3d 860, 868 (3d Cir.1995); see also Arco Pipeline Co. v. SS Trade Star, 693 F.2d 280, 281 (3d Cir.1982) (“The purpose of prejudgment interest is to reimburse the claimant for the loss of the use of its investment or its funds from the time of the loss until judgment is entered.”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Sun Ship, Inc., and Cross-Appellee v. Matson Navigation Co., and Cross-Appellant
3rd Cir. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See EEOC v. Wooster Brush Co. Employers Relief Association, 727 F.2d 566, 579 (6th Cir.1984); see also Arco Pipeline Co. v. SS Trade Star, 693 F.2d 280, 281 (3d Cir.1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arco Pipeline Company, in No. 82-1186
v.
Ss Trade Star, Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, Etc., and Any and All Persons Having Interest Therein in Rem, and Trade Star, in Personam, and Tug Tanda 12, Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, Etc. And Any and All Persons Having Any Interest in Rem, and Taylor and Anderson Towing and Lighterage Co., as Owner of the Tug Tanda 12, in Personam, and Tug Donal G. McAllister Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, Etc. And Any and All Persons Having Interest Therein, in Rem, and McAllister Brothers, Inc. As Owners of the Tug Donal G. McAllister in Personam v. Atlantic Richfield Co., Fort Mifflin Marine Terminal, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101, Third Party Trade Oil Company, S.A., in No. 82-1199
82-1186.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Nov 16, 1982.
693 F.2d 280
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

693 F.2d 280

ARCO PIPELINE COMPANY, Appellant in No. 82-1186,
v.
SS TRADE STAR, her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, etc., and any
and all persons having interest therein In Rem, and Trade
Star, In Personam, and TUG TANDA 12, her Engines, Boilers,
Tackle, etc. and any and all persons having any interest In
Rem, and Taylor and Anderson Towing and Lighterage Co., as
owner of the tug Tanda 12, In Personam, and TUG DONAL G.
McALLISTER, her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, etc. and any and
all persons having interest therein, In Rem, and McAllister
Brothers, Inc. as owners of the tug Donal G. McAllister, In Personam,
v.
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO., Fort Mifflin Marine Terminal,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101, Third Party Defendant,
Trade Oil Company, S.A., Appellant in No. 82-1199.

Nos. 82-1186, 82-1199.

United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.

Argued Sept. 30, 1982.
Decided Nov. 16, 1982.

1

William G. Downey, W. Stanley Sneath (argued), Clark, Ladner, Fortenbaugh & Young, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.

2

Alfred J. Kuffler (argued), Palmer, Biezup & Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

3

Before ALDISERT and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges, and SAROKIN,[*] District Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

4

SAROKIN, District Judge.

5

On May 22, 1977, appellee S.S. Trade Star, collided into appellant's berth while docking. In January, 1980, the district court determined that appellee was liable for the accident. By consent of the parties, the matter was referred to a special master to determine the amount of damages suffered by appellant. On June 17, 1981, the master filed his findings of fact and conclusions of law with the district court. Subsequently, appellant and appellee raised objections to the findings with the district court. On February 23, 1982, the court, without opinion, affirmed the special master's findings of fact and conclusions of law. After careful review of the entire record, this court finds that, except for the issue of prejudgment interest, the findings of the master were not clearly erroneous and will therefore be upheld. The issue of prejudgment interest, however, will be remanded to the district court.

6

Appellant contends that the special master's finding that it was entitled to prejudgment interest at a rate of only 6% is not supported by the record. At trial, appellant adduced uncontradicted testimony that its rate of return on investment was substantially above 6%. The special master decided, apparently primarily by reference to case law, that 6% was an appropriate rate for the calculation of prejudgment interest. This finding was clearly erroneous. The purpose of prejudgment interest is to reimburse the claimant for the loss of the use of its investment or its funds from the time of the loss until judgment is entered. In re Bankers Trust Company, 658 F.2d 103, 108 (3d Cir.1981), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 2038, 72 L.Ed.2d 485 (1982). The case will therefore be remanded to the district court to set a rate of prejudgment interest consistent with the record and opinion of this court. In all other respects, the master's report is affirmed and the objections raised by appellee on cross-appeal are denied.

*

Honorable H. Lee Sarokin, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation