Florida Courts Confirm - There is No Loss of Consortium Claim Arising Out of Personal Injury to Non-Seamen on the High Seas
April, 2005
by Kimbley A. Kearney and
Florida Courts Confirm-There is No Loss of
Consortium Claim Arising Out of Personal Injury to
Non-Seamen on the High Seas
by Kimbley A. Kearney
kkearney@clausen.com
Amy L. Witt
awitt@clausen.com
Two recent Florida decisions – one state and one federal – confirm that loss of consortium claims are not allowed under general maritime law in connection with injury to non-seaman on the high seas.
In both Frango v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 891 So.2d 1208, 2005 AMC 804 (Fla. App. 2005), and Michaels v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 2005 AMC 845 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the spouses of non-seamen sought to recover for loss of consortium due to injuries their spouses sustained while they were passengers on the defendants' cruise ships on the high seas. In both cases, the courts held that the general maritime law does not allow recovery of loss of consortium or other non-pecuniary damages in connection with the injury of non-seamen on the high seas.
Frango held that the greater weight of authority was “clearly slanted” against allowing any recovery for loss of consortium in a maritime personal injury case. The court stated that “one of the aims of maritime law is to promote uniformity in the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction.” It accordingly chose to follow In Re Amtrak “Sunset Ltd.” Train Crash in Bayou Canot, Ala., 121 F.3d 1421, 1997 AMC 2962 (11th Cir. 1997), which held that general maritime law does not allow claims for loss of consortium to non-seamen. The Sunset Limited court found that personal injury plaintiffs could not seek non-pecuniary damages under the general maritime law for loss of society, loss of consortium and punitive damages, reasoning that “[u]nless or until the United States Supreme Court should decide to add state remedies to the admiralty remedies for personal injury, personal injury claimants have no claim for non-pecuniary damages.” Frango also found persuasive the reasoning in Chan v. Society Expeditions, Inc., 39 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994). The Chan court rejected a loss of consortium claim in a maritime personal injury case on the ground that the spouse of a non-seaman who is killed on the high seas is unable to recover loss of consortium under the Death on the High Seas Act (46 U.S.C. 761, et. seq.); it would be “absurd” to allow such relief to the spouse of a non-seaman who was merely injured. The federal district court in Michaels, like the state court in Frango, viewed Sunset Limited as “binding and persuasive” authority that damages for loss of consortium are unavailable to the spouses of non-seamen who have suffered nonfatal injuries in international, rather than state territorial waters.•
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2005v2) 2005 Volume 2 Table of Contents
