N. of Eng. Prot.& Indem. Ass'n v. Tesoro Refining & Mktg. Co. , 663 F. App'x 501 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 19 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORTH OF ENGLAND PROTECTING No. 14-56362
AND INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION
LIMITED, D.C. No.
2:13-cv-00956-AK-MRW
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
TESORO REFINING AND
MARKETING COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Alex Kozinski, Circuit Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 30, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN, FISHER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
North of England Protecting and Indemnity Association (NOE) appeals the
adverse judgment entered after a bench trial in its negligence action against Tesoro
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Refining and Marketing Company. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
1. The district court did not err by rejecting NOE’s claim that Tesoro was
negligent by failing to deploy a boom with a standoff around the entire vessel
before the oil spill. Although Tesoro’s operations manual could be read as
requiring a standoff around the entire vessel, the district court did not clearly err by
finding the manual ambiguous. The meaning of the manual is not apparent from
the manual’s language alone, and extrinsic evidence presented at trial provided
substantial evidence for the district court’s finding of ambiguity. Cf. Pac. Gas &
Elec. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., 442 P.2d 641, 644 (Cal. 1968);
Emp’rs Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 733, 744 (Ct. App.
2008) (considering language and extrinsic evidence to determine the meaning of a
contract capable of two or more constructions). Tesoro’s proffered interpretation
was consistent with Tesoro’s contemporaneous understanding of the manual (per
Tesoro’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness), with Tesoro’s longstanding implementation of the
manual and with California regulations. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 2395(d). Further,
because state enforcement officials did not advise Tesoro they believed its
operations manual imposed a higher duty than the governing offloading regulation,
or cite Tesoro for violating another regulation, there is no evidence that Tesoro’s
2
proffered reading was implausible or that Tesoro was put on notice that its
understanding and implementation of Section O may have been contrary to law.
The district court therefore did not clearly err by finding the manual ambiguous.
Even if we were to consider the interpretation of the manual ultimately to be a
question of law, cf. Winet v. Price, 6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 554, 557 (Ct. App. 1992), we
would reach the same conclusion. Accordingly, we need not address whether
Tesoro committed negligence per se. Cal. Evid. Code § 669.
The district court likewise did not clearly err by finding the absence of a
custom or practice requiring a standoff around the entire vessel. The manual was
ambiguous, California regulations concerning offloading did not require it and
testimony by NOE’s expert, Frank Whipple, was inconclusive.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow
Whipple to testify as an expert about his survey, offered to establish custom or
practice. See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999) (reviewing
the exclusion of expert testimony for abuse of discretion). The district court
properly precluded Whipple from testifying as an expert because NOE failed to
disclose the survey as required by Rule 26. Whipple, moreover, was permitted to
testify about his survey as a fact witness, but the district court permissibly
accorded this testimony little weight in light of its unscientific methods. In any
3
event, any error in excluding the expert testimony was harmless. Whipple was
permitted to introduce evidence of the survey as a fact witness, and his testimony
was not persuasive. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1030 (9th
Cir. 2008) (reviewing the exclusion of expert testimony for harmless error).
Because NOE failed to establish Tesoro had a duty to maintain a standoff at
all points from the vessel, we need not address the district court’s alternative
findings as to breach, causation and damages.
3. The district court did not err by rejecting NOE’s claim that Tesoro was
negligent in deploying a secondary boom after the oil spill. NOE failed to
establish when Tesoro employed the secondary boom. It also failed to present
evidence to show what amount of time would have been reasonable under the
circumstances given the misunderstanding of the spill’s severity.
AFFIRMED.
* * *
Tesoro’s motion to strike (Dkt. 22) is GRANTED.
4
FILED
North of England Protecting and Indemnity Association Limited v. Tesoro
SEP 19 2016
Refining and Marketing Company, L.L.C., 14-56362 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent because the district court clearly erred in its treatment
of a crucial piece of evidence, Tesoro’s Operations Manual. The manual clearly
prescribed the precautionary measures that Tesoro was supposed to have taken –
but unfortunately didn’t take – when unloading oil at the Port of Long Beach. The
district court excused Tesoro’s failure to comply with its own manual on the
ground that the manual was ambiguous. That ruling was clearly wrong.
Section O of Tesoro’s Operations Manual says this:
Ensure that oil spill containment boom is deployed around any vessel
that will be transferring persistent oil: Maintain a 4' standoff between
the boom and the vessel. Persistent products include Lube Oils, All
Crude Oils, Gas Oils, Fuel Oils.
With all due respect, there is nothing ambiguous in this language. The
-2-
phrase “a 4' standoff between the boom and the vessel” means just what it says –
that there is to be a standoff of four feet between the vessel and the boom.
Likewise, the phrase “around any vessel” means around any vessel. The manual
does not say “partially around” the vessel, or “along one side” of the vessel.
Around means around. It could not be any clearer that Tesoro’s manual explicitly
requires an oil spill containment boom to be maintained with a four foot standoff
around a vessel that is transferring persistent oil. This requirement is not only
obvious from the clear and unambiguous language, but is a matter of common
sense when it comes to protecting the harbor.
The district court ruled:
I have looked at the manual and I don’t think the manual is at all clear
that it requires a four-foot setoff at all sides around the vessel. It just
says the containment boom should be deployed all the way around the
vessel and that the would be a four-foot standoff. It does not say there
should be a four-foot standoff all around the vessel. You can read it
that way. It may say that, it may not say that. I don’t think it is clear.
-3-
The district court was flat wrong. The manual is perfectly clear, and it
means exactly what it explicitly says.
Was this error harmless? Unfortunately, no.
The critical significance of the district court’s misreading of the manual
manifests itself when it comes to the question of Tesoro’s duty. The district court
ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove, as a matter of negligence law, what Tesoro’s
duty was with regard to the placement of the boom. The district court’s ruling
overlooks the California maritime regulation that says: “No terminal may conduct
transfer operations except in accordance with an operations manual approved by
the Division [of Marine Facilities of the California State Lands Commission].” 2
C.C.R. § 2385(a)(1). Thus, when Tesoro’s Operations Manual is read in
conjunction with this regulation, it becomes apparent that the failure to follow the
manual is a violation of the regulation.
Even if, despite § 2385(a)(1), a violation of the manual is not deemed
negligence per se, Tesoro’s Operations Manual is, nonetheless, compelling
evidence of what Tesoro’s duty of care was. See Powell v. Pacific Electric
-4-
Railway Co., 35 Cal. 2d 40, 46 (1950) (defendant’s operating rule was properly
admitted as bearing on the standard of care defendant thought appropriate to insure
the safety of others); see also Dillenbeck v. City of Los Angeles, 69 Cal. 2d 472,
478-79 (1968) (safety rules of employer admissible as evidence that due care
requires course of conduct prescribed in the rule; “Such rules implicitly represent
an informed judgment as to the feasibility of certain precautions without undue
frustration of the goals of the particular employer.”) Of course, the manual’s value
as proof of Tesoro’s duty depends entirely upon its being read correctly. The
district court ruled that the manual was ambiguous, but it wasn’t.
I would reverse the district court and grant a new trial.