Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Plaintiff Vernon Armstrong alleges he developed lung cancer from asbestos exposure during his Navy service, under claims for negligence, strict liability, maritime negligence, maritime strict liability, and contractor liability, as well as punitive damages for the defendant’s alleged willful and/or reckless failure to warn him about the dangers of their asbestos-containing products. Defendant Foster Wheeler moved to dismiss or strike the claim for punitive damages based on punitive damages not being available under maritime law. The court ruled in favor of Foster Wheeler.
(I) Whether Maritime Law Applies.
As a first matter, the court decided maritime law did indeed apply in this case under the relevant two-prong “location” and “connection” test.
Here, Armstrong alleges he was exposed to asbestos from his activities “aboard launched vessels” and the “maritime activities of others in his vicinity.” There are no allegations that Armstrong was a predominantly land-based worker. As such, his allegations support the finding that the location test was satisfied.
Armstrong alleges he was exposed to asbestos in the “installing, handling, and using” of products that were “designed for maritime use and marketed and supplied for installation aboard ships.” He further describes these products as being “essential to the operation, navigation, function and safety of the ship . . . and its maritime activity.” Accordingly, the connection test was similarly satisfied.
(II) Whether Punitive Damages are Available.
The court ruled Armstrong did not show that punitive damages are available under maritime law for negligence or strict liability claims.
The Supreme Court established a three-part framework for determining which types of damages plaintiffs can seek under general maritime law: (1) whether the relief sought has “long been available” in general maritime actions, and (2) whether any statute precludes that relief from being awarded. Later, a third part was added concerning whether courts are nevertheless “compelled on policy grounds” to award requested damages.
Armstrong argued that punitive damages are historically recoverable under maritime law for common law causes of action but did not cite any cases in which punitive damages were available for his specific claims of negligence and strict liability.
Accordingly, the court here granted Foster Wheeler’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Specifically, Armstrong may amend his claims against Foster Wheeler to reassert punitive damages if he could allege that his exposure to their products occurred in a land-based setting and that his allegations regarding his exposure aboard vessels pertain only to the other defendants.
A copy of the ruling can be found here.
