Putting our trust in the trial judge's compass wherever the visibility is poor, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 347 U.S. 409, 74 S.Ct. 608, 98 L.Ed. 806 (1954). Early on the morning of January 27, 1960, in heavy fog, a barge in tow of Jahncke's tug Claribel hit a support piling of the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, 3.4 miles south of the north draw. Two spans of the causeway collapsed.

9 Stat. 635; now 46 U.S.C.A. § 181 et seq. The ITCO decision built upon one corner of the Supreme Court's ruling in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing, 347 U.S. 409, 74 S.Ct. 608, 98 L.Ed. 806 (1954). In Cushing, the issue faced by the Court involved the compatability of the Louisiana Direct Action Statute and the same congressionally enacted limitation provisions.

A. THE ADMIRALTY PROCEEDING AND THE UNDERWRITERS We first note that the Act itself affords the underwriters no right of limitation. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing, 347 U.S. 409, 421-22, 433, 74 S.Ct. 608, 615, 98 L.Ed. 806 (1954). See also 3 Benedict on Admiralty § 45 at 5-37 (December 1989) (only "owner" or "charterer" may limit liability).

The Act provides for all claims against an owner to be aggregated and decided at one time under a single set of substantive and procedural rules, thereby avoiding inconsistent results and repetitive litigation. See Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing, 347 U.S. 409, 414-16, 74 S.Ct. 608, 610-12, 98 L.Ed. 806 (1954) (plurality opinion). This objective is especially important where there are multiple claims, which aggregate to more than the limitation fund; the concursus before the admiralty court is designed in part to marshall available assets and to set priorities among the various claims.

Cushing v. Maryland Cas. Co., 198 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1952). 347 U.S. 409, 74 S.Ct. 608, 98 L.Ed. 806 (1954). See Guillot v. Cenac Towing Co., 366 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1966).

Moreover, with respect to the Limitation Act itself, we have previously noted that the Supreme Court has taken a "restrictive view" of the Limitation Act, and courts have been reluctant to read into congressional silence an implied deference to the Limitation Act. See Hercules Carriers, Inc. v. Claimant State of Fla., Dept. of Transp., 768 F.2d 1558, 1564 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Maryland Casualty Co., v. Cushing, 347 U.S. 409, 437, 74 S.Ct. 608, 98 L.Ed. 806 (1954); and The Main v.Williams, 152 U.S. 122, 132-33, 14 S.Ct. 486, 38 L.Ed. 381 (1894)). In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Zapata, 926 F.2d at 485. Indeed, Justice Clark, providing the fifth crucial vote in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing, 347 U.S. 409 (1954) (plurality), noted that, pursuant to the Limitation Act and the Admiralty Rules, "the limitation court is empowered to enjoin suits in other courts arising out of the accident only if the suits are against the owner, charterer, or vessel; no mention was made of enjoining suit against any other party . . ." Id. at 426 (Clark, J., concurring).

Further avoidance at this time of a determinative resolution cannot be justified, for such ambiguity in the law necessarily negates its inherent value to litigants, counsel and courts. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing, 347 U.S. 409, 74 S.Ct. 608, 98 L.Ed. 806 (1954). See, Gilmore Black, Admiralty, § 10-31, p. 715 (1957 ed.).

Therefore, the Court tested the insurer's claim of entitlement to the shipowner's statutory right to limit liability according to the law of Louisiana. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing, 347 U.S. 409, 74 S.Ct. 608, 98 L.Ed. 806, 1954 A.M.C. 837 (1954). The insurer attempted to rely on a clause in its policy limiting its liability to "such sums as the assured * * * shall have become legally liable to pay and shall have paid on account."

Flink v. Paladini, 279 U.S. 59, 63, 49 S.Ct. 255, 255, 73 L.Ed. 613 (1929). In Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing, 347 U.S. 409, 74 S.Ct. 608, 98 L.Ed. 806 (1954). Justice Frankfurter reiterated the importance of this aspect of a limitation proceeding.