Grupo Protexa, S.A. v. All American Marine Slip’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The court next held that even if the removal had been 'compulsory by law,' Protexa was not entitled to recover due to a policy provision that the court interpreted to mean that Protexa lost all right to recovery if it breached its duty to act as a prudent uninsured. The court found that Protexa violated this duty '[w]hen [it] acted as its own salvor.' [753 F.Supp.] at 1237. Among other things, the court noted that 'Protexa had no experience in deep water wreck removal operations,' ignored AAMS' request that a third-party salvor be involved as much as possible, ignored bids by experienced salvors that were much lower than Protexa's costs, did not properly execute its removal plan, and failed to implement recommendations by an experienced salvor. Id. at 1237-39.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grupo Protexa, S.A. v. All American Marine Slip

2. “removal was reasonably required by law, or where failure to remove would have reasonably exposed an insured to liability imposed by law sufficiently great to justify the expense of removal,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grupo Protexa, S.A. v. All American Marine Slip

3. “a reasonable shipowner at the relevant time would determine that the probable cost of removal would be less than the probable tort liability if removal was not undertaken.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grupo Protexa, S.A. v. All American Marine Slip