This appeal presents an insurance coverage question. International Marine Underwriters (IMU), a division of Commercial Union Insurance Company, appeals the judgment in favor of Quigg Brothers-Sehermer, Inc. (Quigg Brothers). We reverse and render.

During a storm in November, 1995, two of the Quigg Brothers’ construction barges, the SKOOKUM and the NO. 11 SCOW, broke from their moorings near the mouth of the Quillayute River and were carried downstream to La Push Harbor. The barges eventually landed on First Beach within the Quileute Indian Reservation, adjoining the coastal waters within the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. The presence of the barges on First Beach created several liability risks, including the possibility that the barges might wash back into the sanctuary or discharge oil, resulting in fines for nonconforming use and reimbursement for government removal. Quigg Brothers acted swiftly to secure, repair and tow the barges back to the Quigg Brothers’ yard, incurring a total cost of $53,796.81.

Quigg Brothers obtained a marine subscription insurance policy which included both hull insurance clauses and protection and indemnity (P & I) insurance clauses. Quigg Brothers maintained P & I insurance on its entire fleet but maintained hull coverage on only two vessels, electing to save on premiums and bear its own hull *999 risks on the remaining vessels, including the SKOOKUM and the NO. 11 SCOW. IMU was the underwriter for 75% of the Quigg Brothers’ subscription policy. Quigg Brothers submitted a claim to IMU for the expenses relating to the barges, seeking coverage under the P & I clauses for wreck removal and fines and penalties, which read:

The P & I clauses also contain an exclusion for expenses recoverable under hull insurance, which reads:

IMU obtained a survey of the barges after the recovery, resulting in the following valuations. Value at La Push, adjusted for estimated damage: SKOOKUM: $95,000.00; NO. 11 SCOW: $20,000.00. Value at the Quigg Brothers’ yard after repair and recovery: SKOOKUM: $80,000.00 Hull; $25,000.00 Machinery; NO. 11 SCOW: $45,000.00. In December, 1995, shortly after recovery of the vessels, Quigg Brothers provided a vessel schedule to their insurance broker estimating the market values of the barges to be: SKOO-KUM: $150,000.00; NO. 11 SCOW: $100,-000.00.

IMU denied coverage and Quigg Brothers brought this lawsuit. The district court held a bench trial, entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, rendered judgment for Quigg Brothers for breach of contract and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev.Code § 19.86.020 (1999), and awarded damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. With regard to the hull coverage exclusion, the district court found:

*1000 On appeal, IMU contends, and we agree, that the expenses incurred by Quigg Brothers qualify as sue and labor expenses recoverable under hull insurance. Sue and labor expenses are “sums spent, by the insured or its representative in an effort to mitigate damage and loss once an accident has occurred; and the insurance company pays them even where ... the ship is ultimately declared a total loss, in order to encourage diligence in the prevention of excessive liability or loss.” 1 Quigg Brothers only purchased hull coverage for two of its vessels and chose to bear its own hull risks with regard to the SKOOKUM and the NO. 11 SCOW. As noted above, the American Institute Hull Clauses (6/77) were part of the Quigg Brothers’ policy. The sue and labor provision reads:

The expenses incurred by Quigg Brothers are clearly collectible under the hull clauses as sue and labor expenses to safeguard and recover the barges. The exclusion is effective with regard to all expenses collectible under hull coverage, if obtained, and the district court erred in its refusal to apply the hull coverage exclusion. The hull coverage exclusion is central to the purpose of P & I insurance, which is “to insure owners against risks outside the scope of coverage under standard hull policies.” 2 “As sue and labor expenses are covered by hull policies, they normally would not be recovered from the P & I policy underwriter.” 3 Both historically, and in this case, claims which would be payable under the standard form of hull policy are excepted from the P & I policy. 4

Quigg Brothers argues that it only intended to avoid liability and that the pur *1001 pose of these expenses was not to repair and recover the barges. Subjective intent does not control the determination of coverage. It is not disputed that the expenses were incurred to safeguard the barges, render them seaworthy, and tow them back to the Quigg Brothers’ yard. Even if the intent were to avoid liability, the expenses are collectible as sue and labor. Quigg Brothers has presented no evidence or legal authority to suggest that the expenses would not qualify as sue and labor, but has simply reiterated that the barges posed a risk of liability and that the removal was compulsory by law.

Where all of the costs are essential to any attempt to save the vessel, any benefit to the P & I underwriter is incidental and the hull coverage exclusion is effective to avoid P & I coverage or equitable contribution. 5 Although the recovery of the barges avoided potential liability for fines and penalties, the recovery expenses qualified as sue and labor, which are excluded from the P & I policy.

Because we rule that there was no coverage under the P & I policy, there is no basis for holding IMU in violation of Wash. Rev.Code § 19.86.020, and all other points of appeal and cross appeal are rendered moot. We reverse the judgment of the district court and render judgment that Quigg Brothers take nothing by its suit.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

. Seaboard Shipping Corp. v. Jocharanne Tugboat Corp., 461 F.2d 500, 503 (2d Cir.1972).

. Insurance Co. of North America v. Board of Comm’rs of the Port of New Orleans, 733 F.2d 1161 , 1166 (5th Cir.1984).

. Seaboard Shipping, 461 F.2d at 505 .

. See Seaboard Shipping, 461 F.2d at 503 n. 2.

. See Seaboard Shipping, 461 F.2d at 504-05 .