In Trailer Bridge, Inc. v. Louisiana Int’l Marine, L.L.C., No. 25-30331 (5th Cir. 2026), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the supplier of tugs to the charterer of a barge established a maritime lien despite the inclusion of a no-lien clause in the barge charter party. In August 2020, Trailer Bridge, Inc., a freight service company, chartered two flat deck barges to Work Cat Trans Gulf. The Barge Charter contained a “no-lien” clause that required Work Cat to indemnify Trailer Bridge against any lien arising upon the barges during the contract period.

In November 2020, Work Cat finalized a six month charter agreement for Louisiana International Marine to provide two tugboats to tow the barges. Work Cat was required to pay a daily rate to use the Tugs, including the cost of fuel and lubricants. Work Cat settled only one quarter of its invoices with LIM before it filed for bankruptcy in May, 2021. LIM filed a proof of claim in bankruptcy seeking to recover its unpaid invoices.

Trailer Bridge sold both Barges by November 2022. Subsequently, LIM sent a Notice of Lien and Demand for Payment to one of the purchasers. Trailer Bridge intervened to defend the lawsuit, arguing that the Barges were exempt from a maritime lien pursuant to the Barge Charter’s no-lien clause. After a two day bench trial, the Eastern District Court of Louisiana determined that LIM had a lien against both Barges. Trailer Bridge appealed the verdict.

The Fifth Circuit Appeals Court first considered whether LIM established a maritime lien under the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act. Under CIMLA, a party may obtain a maritime lien if it provides necessaries to a vessel on the order of the owner, or a person authorized by the owner. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that the towing services provided to the Barges constituted necessaries that Work Cat was authorized by the owner to obtain, thereby creating a maritime lien.

The Appellate Court noted that the Barge Charter’s no-lien clause did not prevent a maritime lien from arising unless the entity providing necessaries had actual knowledge of the clause before agreement. LIM gained actual knowledge of the clause by December 20, 2020, but the Tug Charter was executed on November 12, 2020. As such, LIM lacked actual knowledge of the no-lien provision at the relevant time. Trailer Bridge then argued that LIM had an independent duty to investigate whether any no-lien provision applied to the Barges. The Appellate Court similarly rejected this argument, noting that CIMLA is silent on whether a diligence standard applies to no-lien clauses in maritime contracts.

The Fifth Circuit rejected LIM’s attempt to include the costs of fuel and lubricant used while the Tugs serviced the Barges in its maritime lien. The justices noted that the value of a maritime lien is strictly limited to the value of necessaries provided to a vessel. The Court concluded that fuel and lubricant costs were ancillary to this purpose and did not impact the value of the maritime lien.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court in full.

Trailer Bridge, Inc. v. Louisiana Int’l Marine, L.L.C., confirms the application of maritime liens despite the inclusion of a no-lien clause in maritime contracts and the absence of a diligence requirement for providers of necessaries to discover the clause. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion clarifies that maritime liens are constrained to value of necessaries provided to a vessel.

For more information on CIMLA or the decision in Trailer Bridge v. Louisiana Int’l Marine, L.L.C., please contact us at info@chaloslaw.com