When a lifesaving prize is awarded, all parties who participated in the lifesaving service will be involved in the prize as a result of their participation. In addition, the owner, master and crew of the recovered vessel are eligible to participate in the prize. If the recovered property is damaged by the salvage work, the owner can claim that the salvage acted negligently. If the court finds that the rescuer did not meet a standard of due diligence, the rescue premium will be reduced according to the degree of negligence. Similar claims by the Coast Guard have had mixed results. By law, the Coast Guard may « take any action necessary to rescue and assist persons and to protect and save property » (14 U.S.C.A. § 88 [1996]). Most courts and commentators have interpreted this language as creating a legal obligation. Therefore, under this interpretation, the government would not be entitled to a rescue bonus for services provided by the Coast Guard. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to follow this interpretation in United States v. American Oil, 417 F.2d 164 (1969). In its decision, the Court found that the Coast Guard had no pre-existing obligation to provide rescue services and that legal language defining Coast Guard functions was permitted. While the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals may authorize the United States to recover lifesaving awards for services provided by the Coast Guard, other courts have refused to follow this interpretation, so the government`s right to recover lifesaving awards for services provided by the Coast Guard is still being challenged.

The courts have also upheld a request for rescue service if the crew, master or officers were unable to work and the vessel was exposed to a maritime hazard due to the insecurity of its master. Anyone with a direct financial interest in the saved property, such as the owner, may be held liable for the recovery premium. In addition, anyone responsible for the property, such as a bailiff, can also be held liable for the recovery surcharge. The persons responsible for the rescue grant are not necessarily the persons who requested the rescue services. Non-marine policies generally prohibit policyholders from leaving and claiming a full loss. However, insurers may, in appropriate circumstances, waive this condition where justified. For example, if a ship sinks and is deemed too expensive to recover, it may be declared abandoned. The insurer could then claim ownership and salvage rights to the sunken ship. The element of danger is an important but poorly understood element. The maritime interpretation of danger is broad and liberal. Immediate and absolute danger is not a prerequisite for danger at sea.

If the property is in danger or blocked « so that it is exposed to the potential danger of damage or destruction, » there is danger (McNabb v. O. S. Bowfin, 565 F. Supp. 22 [W.D. Wash. 1983]). Similarly, the degree of risk does not determine whether the rescuer is entitled to a rescue bonus, but is taken into account in determining the amount of compensation. Under United States Admiralty law, a stranded ship that may be exposed to wind, weather, and waves is considered to be in a position where it can be destroyed and therefore in danger. In all rescue service situations, the service must be entirely voluntary. The lifeguard may not have provided the service on the basis of a contract or agreement or any other existing obligation.

When the U.S. Navy or Coast Guard provided the rescue service, the question arose as to whether these services were actually voluntary. The convention does not consider saving lives to be part of rescue, but if one ship saves lives and the other saves property, the arbitrator may divide the salvage allowance between them as he sees fit. A rescue situation arises when a shipowner accepts an offer of assistance in one salvo. In this respect, the agreement is contractual, but it is not a service contract with pre-agreed fees. [3] Instead, the law provides that after service, a court or arbitrator will make an arbitral award taking into account the following factors: The sale value of the property may exceed the amount paid for the claim, so recovery rights are sometimes legally challenged by multiple parties. The right to be rewarded for rescue at sea is based on both the principles of fairness and public order; The law tries to be fair to both owners and rescuers. The legal right to a rescue bonus arises when a person acts as a volunteer (i.e., without contractual or other prior legal obligation) protects or contributes to the protection of a ship, cargo, cargo or other recognized object of rescue from dangers at sea. When the Navy performs the rescue service, the courts have held that, since rescue is not part of the Navy`s duties, any assistance provided by the Navy is voluntary, whether or not the Navy is located in the area where the recovered vessel is in danger.

Federal law now provides that « the Secretary of the Navy may settle and receive payment for U.S. claims relating to Department of the Navy rescue services » (10 U.S.C.A. § 7363 [1996]). The rescue does not have to result from an actual contract. However, there are vessels crewed by professional rescuers under a Lloyd`s Open Form Rescue Agreement (LOF). Advances in technology have made it possible and financially profitable to reach previously inaccessible wrecks, resulting in an increase in rescue claims. The deliberate towing of a drifting vessel to safety also justified a claim for a rescue bonus, even if the drifting vessel was not likely to suffer direct or absolute damage and the fear of danger was minimal. In this sense, towing a stranded ship was also a rescue service. In the towing situation, the courts have ruled that, while there is no immediate fear of imminent harm or danger, a stranded vessel is exposed to strong winds and other extreme weather conditions, putting it at risk.

The prerequisite for successful service can be summarized from the common phrase « no cure »; No payment. However, success does not need to be complete. Partial success, provided that the owners are offered a certain degree of conservation, is sufficient. The Tojo Maru (1972 AC 242 HL) examined certain characteristics of rescue contracts and concluded that the main consideration is that the person providing the rescue service is not entitled to remuneration unless he or she saves all or part of the property. With full coverage, on the other hand, damages would be paid in full. Insurers become the absolute owners of the recovery, if any, and all proceeds from the sale belong to them, even though the proceeds may exceed the amount of the claim paid. A rescue operation is usually a real action. This means that the lawsuit is brought against the saved property such as the ship or its cargo.

In the event that the property is no longer part of the jurisdiction or has been destroyed, an in-person action may be brought to recover the recovery price.