Recent Developments In Maritime Punitive Damages

In 2009, in Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. v. Townsend, the Supreme Court "sea tossed" the law of maritime damages when it held that punitive damages are recoverable for an employer's willful and wanton failure to provide a seaman with maintenance and cure benefits.1 557 U.S. 404, 407-08 (2009). By doing so, Townsend put an end to almost twenty years of near certainty that punitive damages were not available in maintenance and cure claims. To some, Townsend also signaled a shift away from the "uniformity principle" approach to maritime damages as set forth in Miles v. Apex Marine, 498 U.S. 19 (1990).

Generally stated, the Miles uniformity principle holds that if a category of damages is unavailable under a maritime cause of action established by statute, it is similarly unavailable for a parallel claim brought under general maritime law. Because the Jones Act prohibits non-pecuniary damages, and punitive damages are considered non-pecuniary, the Miles uniformity principle was subsequently applied by lower courts to preclude punitive damages claims by seamen for all causes of action, including maintenance and cure claims.

Since Townsend, courts throughout the U.S. have recognized the availability of punitive damages in maintenance and cure claims. However, because the Supreme Court's holding in Townsend only expressly dealt with maintenance and cure, the more difficult question has been whether and to what extent the reasoning in Townsend might authorize punitive damages in other maritime causes of action, despite the Miles uniformity principle. Some courts have recently exhibited a willingness to find that Townsend allows for the recovery of punitive damages for a wider range of general maritime law claims beyond simply maintenance and cure. Unseaworthiness claims in particular have drawn interest, as such claims are routinely alleged in Jones Act and other maritime personal injury lawsuits, and like maintenance and cure claims are based...