Skip to main content

Virginia Court Rules No Punitive Damages Available Under LHWCA



In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Minton, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decision of a jury on January 10, 2013, holding that the award of $12.5 million in punitive damages was inappropriately granted because punitive damages are a remedy prohibited by the terms of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ("LHWCA").

Rubert Minton suffered injuries as a result of developing mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos while working on Exxon Mobile Corporation ("Exxon") ships during his employment at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company (Shipyard). Minton filed suit against Exxon under the federal LHWCA for failure to warn Minton of, and protect him from, the dangers associated with asbestos. The jury found in favor of Minton and awarded him compensatory damages, medical expenses, and punitive damages. Exxon appealed. The Virginia Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court.First, the Supreme Court upheld the jury in finding that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that both the active control duty and the duty to intervene under the LHWCA had been breached by Exxon. Second, the Supreme Court disagreed with Exxon in arguing that Minton did not prove causation, as the Court found that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonably jury to find that Exxon's actions were a substantial contributing factor in causing Minton's injury.

Amongst other attacks on the trial court's rulings, Exxon finally argued that the ruling on punitive damages was error, as 33 U.S.C. section 905(b) states that suing a vessel owner for negligence is "exclusive of all other remedies against the vessel owner." The Court noted that other courts have held that punitive damages are indeed available under the LHWCA. However, the Court rejected these findings by reading the plain language of the statute which states: "The remedy provided in this subsection shall be exclusive of all other remedies against the vessel except remedies available under this chapter." The Court found that because the statute does not specifically provide that punitive damages are available under the statute, the Court cannot read the general maritime law into the statute which provides for punitive damages into the statute.

A copy of this decision can be found here => http://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/supreme-court/2013/111775.html. If you have any questions regarding 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