46 U.S.C. § 30904
Exclusive remedy
If a remedy is provided by this chapter, it shall be exclusive of any other action arising out of the same subject matter against the officer, employee, or agent of the United States or the federally-owned corporation whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Abdulhalim Ali v. Robert Rogers, 780 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 2015).
Abdulhalim Ali v. Robert Rogers, 780 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 2015). “46 U.S.C. § 30904 . 2 That is, “where a remedy lies against the United States, a suit against an agent of the United States ‘by reason of the same subject matter’ is pre *1234 eluded.”
Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co. v. United States, 871 F.3d 131 (1st Cir. 2017). “” 46 U.S.C. § 30904 (emphasis added); see also Ali v.”
Bartel ex rel. Est. of Bishop v. Alcoa S.S. Co., 64 F. Supp. 3d 843 (M.D. La. 2014). “APL quotes a former version of 46 U.S.C. § 30904 (formally cited as 46 U.”
Jones v. United States, 326 F. Supp. 3d 262 (E.D. La. 2018). “23 The Court dismissed Keystone Shipping Services because of the exclusivity provision of the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30904 . 24 A nonjury trial is scheduled to begin on June 11, 2018.”
Arkema Inc. v. Anderson Roofing Co., Inc., 719 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (D. Or. 2010). “” 46 U.S.C. § 30904 . Here, General Steamship argues that the Suits in Admiralty Act precludes plaintiffs’ CERCLA claims against it.”
Bartel ex rel. Est. of Dennis v. Am. Exp. Isbrandtsen, 64 F. Supp. 3d 856 (M.D. La. 2014). “Mathiasen argues that it is immune from the Plaintiffs suit and the Plaintiff must sue the United States, and not Mathiasen, pursuant to the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.”
Verlisha Robinson & Jouan Jackson v. Am. Overseas Marine & Patton Caldwell, 422 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. 2012). “” 46 U.S.C. § 30904 . The PVA incorporates the exclusivity provision by reference.”
Podziewski v. Cabras Marine Corp. (N. Mar. I. 2024). “46 U.S.C. §§ 30904 14 (SAA), 31103 (PVA incorporating SAA exclusivity provision by reference); Dearborn v.”
Fiedler v. United States (9th Cir. 2026). “See 46 U.S.C. § 30904 . That means that “Congress made a considered decision not to apply the FTCA to” SIAA.”
Lantigua-Nunez v. US Coast Guard (1st Cir. 2026). “" 46 U.S.C. § 30904 . That is, a claim falling under the SIAA may not be pursued under another non-maritime statute.”
Shaw v. United States of Am. (N.D. Cal. 2020). “The SIAA in turn provides in relevant part: 12 [I]f a remedy is provided by this chapter, it shall be exclusive of any other action arising out of the same subject matter against the 13 officer, employee, or agent of the United States.”
Sys. Application & Tech., Inc. v. United States (D. Maryland 2020). “SA-Tech and CPC next moved to dismiss the California Action in February 2016, arguing that because they were properly construed as an “agent” of the Navy, the United States was the only defendant under the exclusivity provision of the Suits in Admiralty Act (“SIAA”), 46 U.S.C. §…”
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.