Opinion
CASE NO. 16-22091-CIV-ALTONAGA/O'Sullivan
09-20-2016
MARGARET HILLENBURG, Plaintiff, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Defendant.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff, Margaret Hillenburg's ("Hillenburg['s]") Motion to Strike Defendant's Collateral Source Affirmative Defense ("Motion") [ECF No. 21], filed August 23, 2016. Defendant, Carnival Corporation ("Carnival") filed its Response . . . ("Response") [ECF No. 22] on September 8, 2016. Hillenburg did not file a reply. The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions, the record, and applicable law.
I. BACKGROUND
Hillenburg and her husband were passengers aboard the Carnival Pride during a multi-day cruise in June 2015. (See Am. Compl. [ECF No. 15] ¶¶ 1, 5). The Pride contains an area where passengers can hit golf balls, and also provides golf clubs and golf balls for use in this area. (See id. ¶ 7). On June 16, 2015, while the cruise ship was at sea, Hillenburg was hit on the head by a golf ball. (See id. ¶ 22).
On July 18, 2016, Hillenburg filed an Amended Complaint against Carnival, claiming Carnival negligently caused her injury. (See generally id.). Carnival filed its Answer . . . ("Answer") [ECF No. 20] on August 3, 2016, raising 16 affirmative defenses. (See generally id.). As its fourth affirmative defense, Carnival alleges it is entitled to a "set-off, off-set and/or reduction for any and all collateral source benefits either paid or payable to [Hillenburg]" in the event Hillenburg recovers on her negligence claim. (Id. 6 (alteration added)). In her Motion, Hillenburg seeks to strike this fourth affirmative defense. (See generally Mot.).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), "[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f) (alteration added). Nevertheless, "a court will not exercise its discretion under the rule to strike a pleading unless the matter sought to be omitted has no possible relationship to the controversy, may confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party." Reyher v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 574, 576 (M.D. Fla. 1995) (citations omitted); see also Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Performance Mach. Sys. U.S.A., Inc., No. 04-60861-CIVMARTINEZ, 2005 WL 975773, at *11 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2005).
III. ANALYSIS
Hillenburg argues Carnival's fourth affirmative defense is barred under general maritime law. (See Mot. 1). Both parties agree maritime law applies. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 1; Answer ¶ 1).
In personal injury cases, general maritime law recognizes the collateral-source rule, which prohibits a defendant-tortfeasor from reducing its liability by the amount of recovery a plaintiff receives from third parties and sources collateral to the defendant-tortfeasor. See Borque v. Diamond M. Drilling Co., 623 F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir. 1980). This substantive rule carries an evidentiary component, which "prohibits the introduction of evidence offered to show that the [plaintiff] already has been compensated for his injuries." Id. (alteration added).
Carnival's fourth affirmative defense "alleges, without admitting liability, that in the event that the Plaintiff should recover on her claim, this Defendant would be entitled to a set-off, off-set and/or reduction for any and all collateral source benefits either paid or payable to the Plaintiff." (Answer 6). In other words, Carnival seeks to reduce its liability by amounts paid to Hillenburg by collateral sources. In attempting to reduce the amount of damages by the amount of benefits paid or payable to the plaintiff by a collateral source, Carnival's affirmative defense runs squarely against the collateral-source rule. See Borque, 623 F.2d at 354. Accordingly, the Court strikes the fourth affirmative defense from the Answer. Carnival may not introduce evidence of benefits or payments made to Hillenburg by a collateral source.
This result does not absolve Hillenburg of her burden of demonstrating the reasonableness and necessity of her medical expenses. Nor does it preclude Carnival from challenging the reasonableness and amount of medical expenses sought.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [ECF No. 21] is GRANTED. Defendant, Carnival Corporation's fourth affirmative defense in its Answer [ECF No. 20] is STRICKEN.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida this 20th day of September, 2016.
/s/ _________
CECILIA M. ALTONAGA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record