33 U.S.C. § 2708

Recovery by responsible party

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 33 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In generalThe responsible party for a vessel or facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial threat of a discharge of oil, may assert a claim for removal costs and damages under section 2713 of this title only if the responsible party demonstrates that—(1) the responsible party is entitled to a defense to liability under section 2703 of this title; or(2) the responsible party is entitled to a limitation of liability under section 2704 of this title.(b) Extent of recovery

A responsible party who is entitled to a limitation of liability may assert a claim under section 2713 of this title only to the extent that the sum of the removal costs and damages incurred by the responsible party plus the amounts paid by the responsible party, or by the guarantor on behalf of the responsible party, for claims asserted under section 2713 of this title exceeds the amount to which the total of the liability under section 2702 of this title and removal costs and damages incurred by, or on behalf of, the responsible party is limited under section 2704 of this title.

(Pub. L. 101–380, title I, § 1008, Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 497.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2022 · leading case: Water Quality Ins. Syndicate v. United States, 225 F. Supp. 3d 41 (D.D.C. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Water Quality Ins. Syndicate v. United States, 225 F. Supp. 3d 41 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 3× “” 33 U.S.C. § 2708 (a)(2); see United States v.”

Savage Servs. Corp. v. United States, 25 F.4th 925 (11th Cir. 2022). “33 U.S.C. § 2708 (a). Simi- larly, if a responsible party fails to timely pay a claim for removal costs or damages, the entity that does pay those costs may present its claim for reimbursement to the Fund.”

United States v. Citgo Asphalt Refining Co., 718 F.3d 184 (3rd Cir. 2013). “33 U.S.C. § 2708 (a)(2). Specifically, Frescati was able to limit its liability for cleanup to $45,474,000, thus allowing it to recover cleanup costs exceeding that amount from the Fund.”

Bean Dredging, LLC v. United States, 773 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2011). “[it] is entitled to a limitation of liability under section 2704 of this title,” 33 U.S.C. § 2708 (a)(2) (emphasis added); see also Water Quality Ins.”

Smith Prop. Holdings, 4411 Connecticut L.L.C. v. United States, 311 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.D.C. 2004). “” 33 U.S.C. § 2708 . Smith next argues that the NPFC’s conclusion directly contradicts its prior determination that Smith was entitled to reimbursement, as evidenced by the NPFC’s settlement offer.”

Gatlin Oil Co., Inc., a North Carolina Corp. v. United States of Am. Dep't of Transp., 169 F.3d 207 (4th Cir. 1999). “Under 33 U.S.C. §§ 2708 and 2713 of the OPA, Gatlin Oil is entitled to removal costs and damages from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (“Fund”) if it is a party responsible for removal costs and damages but has a defense that the discharge or threat of discharge of oil into…”

Int'l Marine Carriers v. Oil Spill Liab. Trust Fund, 903 F. Supp. 1097 (S.D. Tex. 1994). “33 U.S.C. § 2708 . OPA section 2703 provides a defense to section 2708 liability where a responsible party establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the discharge .”

Water Quality Ins. Syndicate v. United States, 632 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D. Mass. 2009). “Under § 2708, [t]he responsible party for a vessel or facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial threat of a discharge of oil, may assert a claim for *114 removal costs and damages under section 2713 of this title only if the responsible party…”

Great Am. Ins. v. United States, 55 F. Supp. 3d 1053 (N.D. Ill. 2014). · cites it 2× “33 U.S.C. § 2708 (a). A responsible party is not entitled to limit its liability if the incident was proximately caused by (1) gross negligence or willful misconduct, or (2) the violation of an applicable Federal safety, construction, or operating regulation.”

Unocal Corp. v. United States, 222 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2000). “33 U.S.C. § 2708 (a). Viewing these two statutory provisions in concert, one must conclude that a “responsible party” who has asserted a complete defense can be considered a “claimant” under the OPA.”

Puerto Rico v. M/V Emily S., 132 F.3d 818 (1st Cir. 1997). “See 33 U.S.C. §§ 2708 (a), 2713(b)(1)(B). See generally Schoenbaum, supra, at 384.”

Am. S.S. Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n, Inc. v. United States of Am. (E.D.N.Y 2020). · cites it 2× “Once the responsible party pays the third- party claimant, the responsible party may seek reimbursement from the Fund as permitted by 33 U.S.C. §§ 2708 (b) and 2713(b)(1)(B), and in the manner prescribed by applicable regulations.”

Show all 15 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.