Skip to main content

Maritime Law--En Banc 5th Circuit Rules Punitive Damages NOT Allowed in Jones Act Cases


In the long awaited en banc decision of McBride v. Estes Well Services, LLC, No. 12-30714 (Sept. 25, 2014), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had to decide whether seaman plaintiffs, two injured seamen and the personal representative of a deceased seaman, could recover punitive damages under either the Jones Act or the general maritime law of the United States. The en banc Court affirmed the district court and concluded that the case was controlled by the SCOTUS decision in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., which holds that the Jones Act limits a seaman's recovery to pecuniary losses where liability is predicated on the Jones Act or unseaworthiness. Because punitive damages are non-pecuniary losses, punitive damages were not recoverable in the case.
 
 
 
The 73-page decision is interesting, as there are two separate concurring opinions for the 8 judges in the majority and two separate dissenting opinions by 6 judges. Care was taken in this decision, as several circuits hold that the Miles proscription on non-pecuniary damages applies. However, the broad holding of Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 2009 AMC 1521 (2009), held that the proscription against awards of non-pecuniary damages recognized in Miles does not apply to actions brought under the general maritime law. The first Fifth Circuit panel in McBride, citing Atlantic Sounding, held that the general maritime law allows awards of punitive damages outside of the context of the Jones Act and Death of the High Seas Act.

In the death action, the en banc majority found that the facts in McBride were indistinguishable from the facts in Miles.  Therefore, as Miles limited survivor damages to their pecuniary losses, the personal representative of the deceased seaman was equally limited to pecuniary losses. Quickly turning to the injury plaintiffs, the Court pointed out that the Jones Act applied to injured seaman as well as those killed through the negligence of their employer. The Court further noted that "no one has suggested why [the Miles] holding would not apply to an injury case such as those asserted by [the injury plaintiffs]."
 
In addressing Atlantic Sounding, the Court noted that SCOTUS did not overrule Miles and "took pains to distinguish" maintenance and cure claims from the claims in Miles and equally, the case before the Court.

Given this latest decision and the inconsistent construction of the proscription against non-pecuniary damages in Miles, watch this space--this case will attempt to make its way to the Supremes.
 
If you are interested in receiving a copy of this decision or wish to reach me, you may do so by writing to me at mov@chaloslaw.com.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl...
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.”    At the ...
5 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Novel Rule B Attachment Rejected by Eleventh Circuit

In World Wide Supply OU v. Quail Cruises Ship Management , Case No. 14-14838 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order vacating an attachment of legal settlement funds.  At issue in this appeal was an attachment of property made pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule B. This appeal had a complicated background, involving multiple lawsuits in federal district courts, Florida state court, and a Spanish bankruptcy court. The common denominator of these suits was Quail Cruises Ship Management, from which multiple parties, including participants in the appeal, tried to collect money that they believed Quail owed them. This is not surprising, as there have been numerous cases against Quail due to a failed cruise venture they operated. The money at issue arose from the legal settlement of a dispute over the purchase of a cruise ship featured on ABC Television Network’s long-running series, The Love Boat. The ...
5 comments
Read more