Punitive Damages Not Recoverable By Seaman Under Jones Act Or General Maritime Law According To Fifth Circuit
In an en banc opinion, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that the survivors of a Jones Act seaman as well as injured seamen are not eligible to recover punitive damages under the Jones Act or general maritime law. The court’s opinion reversed a controversial panel opinion, which had held that such damages were available despite years of precedent to the contrary.
In the underlying action, the administratrix of a dead seaman’s estate as well as three injured seamen sought compensatory and punitive damages under the Jones Act and general maritime law after an accident occurred on a barge. The plaintiffs argued that previous U.S. Supreme Court precedent barring recovery of punitive damages under the Jones Act and general maritime law for wrongful death actions in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) had been overruled or “severely undermined” by a subsequent Supreme Court case, Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009), which allowed for an award of punitive damages in a maintenance and cure action.
The Fifth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ argument and found that the rule barring recovery of punitive damages set out in Miles is still sound law. The court explained that both the history of the Jones Act and general maritime law, as set out in Miles, demonstrates that Jones Act and general maritime claims for wrongful death were limited only to pecuniary damages. In particular, the court explained that the Jones Act was modeled after the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), which prior to passage of the Jones Act, was found to allow only for pecuniary damages. In Miles, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that FELA’s damages limitation was known at the time that Congress passed the Jones Act and, therefore, Congress must have intended to incorporate the limitation into the Jones Act as well. With respect to general maritime law, the court emphasized that in Miles the Supreme Court explained that the courts could not award more damages than allowed for by Congress, and Congress had not expanded general maritime law awards to include recovery of non-pecuniary damages. Thus, the Fifth Circuit majority opinion found that because punitive damages are not pecuniary, they are therefore not recoverable under either the Jones Act or general maritime law. Further, the majority opinion found that this rule extended to the claims of the three injured seamen as well as the claimant in the wrongful death action.
With respect to the Townsend case relied on by plaintiffs, the court stated that the case applied only to actions for maintenance and cure, which are “independent and cumulative” of other claims. The court emphasized that the Townsend court distinguished itself from Miles and actually reaffirmed that Miles was still good law in the context of that opinion, thereby undermining the argument that Townsend had overruled Miles.
While the Fifth Circuit’s en banc opinion reestablished clear precedent on the recovery of punitive damages in wrongful death actions under the Jones Act and general maritime law, there is still some question as to the precedential extent of its holding with respect to injured seamen. In particular, Miles itself only applied to wrongful death actions and did not squarely assess the award of punitive damages in personal injury claims. Moreover, the majority opinion is supported by two concurrences, one of which joins only in the majority’s judgment but not its reasoning with respect to the injured seamen, thereby placing some doubt on the strength of the court’s holding with respect to that issue.
Earlier this year, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania concluded that a seaman could recover punitive damages in an unseaworthiness claim under general maritime law, but that punitive damages were not recoverable by survivors to a deceased seaman.
