The reason for the permission to win the loss of the sea and the loss of the Gentile

Hello Rabbi,
The Gemara in the BM cites a source from verses that there is a right of recovery in the case of a loss from a sea vessel and a loss of a gentile, and it is seemingly difficult to see why there is a right of recovery here. At most, what can be inferred from the verse is that there is no obligation to return such losses, but ownership remains with the owner, and in any case there is no right of recovery in the matter. I thought of the excuse that the exemption from the obligation to return is itself what creates despair in the owner of the loss, and therefore the exemption itself creates the right of recovery. There are those who understand that the right of recovery arises from the verse itself as a kind of decree of the text, and it applies even where the owners did not despair of the loss. According to my explanation, where we know that the owners did not despair of the loss, then indeed there is no obligation to return, but there is also no right of recovery, and all that the verse seeks to renew is only the exemption from the obligation to return, which creates a presumption of despair in the owner (but does not force it).
I would love to hear your thoughts on this understanding.
Best regards,