Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 02-2115, SECTION "L" (5)
November 18, 2002
ORDER REASONS
Before the Court is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages filed by Defendants TMA Marine, Inc. and Great Lakes Dredge Dock Company. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff, Michael Cascio, filed a complaint claiming that he suffered personal injuries on a vessel when he fell backwards into an uncovered manhole while performing duties he was instructed and obliged to perform pursuant to directives of the two Defendants, TMA Marine, Inc. and Great Lakes Dredge and Dock ("Great Lakes"). Plaintiff alleges that at all times, he was employed by TMA Marine, Inc. as a Jones Act seaman, and was permanently assigned to work aboard a vessel owned and operated by TMA Marine. Plaintiff asserts that the the Defendants were negligent under both the Jones Act and the general maritime law, alleges violations of OCSHA, and asserts an unseaworthiness action under the general maritime law. In his complaint, the Plaintiff contends that the fault of the Defendants was willful, wanton and outrageous and, therefore, he is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages under the general maritime law. In addition, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages for alleged willful, wanton, arbitrary and capricious refusal of the Defendants to pay maintenance and cure.
The Defendants have brought the present Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages arguing that punitive damages are not recoverable as a matter of law under both the Jones Act and the general maritime law.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a defendant to seek dismissal of a complaint based on the "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a district court should construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff, assuming all factual allegations to be true. See Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 754 (5th Cir. 1999). Rule 12(b)(6) motions are viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted. See id. A complaint may not be dismissed "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id. (quoting Lowrey v. Texas A M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997)).
In accepting the factual allegations of the complaint as true and resolving all ambiguities or doubts regarding the sufficiency of the claim in favor of the Plaintiff, the Court finds that as a matter of law that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for punitive damages under the general maritime law or the Jones Act. The law is clear that punitive damages are not available in cases of willful nonpayment of maintenance and cure under the general maritime law. Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 59 F.3d 1496, 1513 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Bush v. Diamond Offshore Co., 46 F. Supp.2d 515, 521 (E.D. La. 1999) (finding that "if an employer willfully and wantonly fails to pay maintenance and cure to a seam an employee, the seaman may recover past maintenance plus attorney's fees but not punitive damages.") Neither are punitive damages available to a seaman under the Jones Act or General Maritime Law. See Anderson v. Texaco, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 531, 533 (E.D. La. 1992) (citing Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) for the finding that a plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages under the Jones Act). Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages under the general maritime law and the Jones Act must be dismissed. Further, punitive damages are not recoverable under the general maritime law against a non-employer defendant. See Earhart v. Cheveron U.S.A., Inc., 862 F. Supp. 515, 516 (E.D. La. 1998).
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages filed by Defendants TMA Marine, Inc. and Great Lakes Dregde Dock Company is GRANTED.