Allen et al v. NCL Corporation, Ltd. et al
Filing
27
ORDER granting 15 Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (hs01)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 16-25382-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
BRENDA ALLEN and DONALD ALLEN, SR.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NCL CORPORATION, LTD.; NCL
(BAHAMAS), LTD., d/b/a NORWEGIAN
CRUISE LINE; and NCL AMERICA LLC
d/b/a NCL AMERICA
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint [ECF No. 15].
The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion
and the record and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’
Motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
On May 29, 2016, Plaintiff Brenda Allen (“Plaintiff”) tripped and fell on a walkway
aboard the Norwegian vessel Pride of America. The accident occurred while the ship was docked
in Hawaii. On February 22, 2017, Plaintiff and her husband, Donald Allen, Sr. (“Mr. Allen”),
filed their Amended Complaint alleging claims for negligence, vicarious liability, and loss of
consortium against each Defendant in separate counts. Plaintiff alleges that NCL Corporation,
LTD.; NCL (Bahamas), LTD., d/b/a Norwegian Cruise Line; and NCL America LLC d/b/a NCL
America (collectively the “Defendants”) each owned, possessed, controlled, and/or operated the
Pride of America vessel. Plaintiffs attached their guest ticket contract to the Amended
Complaint. It provides, in pertinent part, that:
The word “Carrier” shall mean NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. doing business as
Norwegian Cruise Line and shall include its subsidiaries, affiliates, agents,
assigns, as well as the vessel upon which the voyage was booked or any vessel
substituted in its place, including the master and crew of the vessel(s) for Guest’s
voyage. However, for voyages on the Pride of America, the word “Carrier” shall
mean NCL America LLC doing business as NCL America and shall include its
subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, assigns, as well as the vessel Pride of America, or
any vessel substituted in its place, including the master and crew of the vessel(s)
for Guest’s voyage.
[ECF No. 10 Ex. A ¶ 1]
On March 8, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Allen’s loss of consortium claim
and all claims against NCL Corporation and NCL (Bahamas).
ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570,
127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)). Although this pleading standard “does not require ‘detailed factual
allegations,’ . . . it demands more than unadorned, the defendant –unlawfully-harmed-me
accusations.” Id. (alteration added) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Pleadings must contain “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted).
Indeed, “only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). To meet this “plausibility standard,” a
plaintiff must “plead[ ] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. at 678 (alteration added) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court must construe the
2
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and take the factual allegations therein as
true. See Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla. Inc., 116 F.3d 1364, 1369 (11th Cir. 1997).
I.
Loss of Consortium
Maritime law does not authorize loss of consortium claims. See Zagrean v. NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd, 157 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1201-02 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (citing Lollie v. Brown Marine
Service, Inc., 995 F.2d 1565, 1565 (11th Cir. 1993)). Plaintiffs contend that Atlantic Sounding
Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009), which held that an injured seaman may recover punitive
damages, stands for the proposition that common law remedies, such as loss of consortium, are
available under maritime law. The Supreme Court’s decision in Atlantic Sounding, however, was
based on the long-established availability of punitive damages under general maritime law. Id. at
424. Although the Eleventh Circuit has not addressed loss of consortium claims since Atlantic
Sounding, the Eighth Circuit has held “that there is no well-established admiralty rule, as there is
with respect to punitive damages, authorizing loss of consortium damages as a general matter.”
Doyle v Graske, 579 F.3d 898, 906 (8th Cir. 2009). See also Zagrean, 157 F. Supp. 3d at 1202
(“[t]he Eleventh Circuit has not interpreted Atlantic Sounding to permit loss of consortium
claims by the spouses of cruise ship passengers”).
To circumvent maritime law, Plaintiffs argue that because the ship was docked in Hawaii
at the time of the alleged incident, either Hawaii, Georgia (Plaintiffs’ state of residence), or
Florida law should control. Plaintiffs’ argument is without merit. Injury on a ship on navigable
waters falls under admiralty jurisdiction. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358
U.S. 625, 628 (1959) (holding that an injury which occurred on a vessel while the vessel was
berthed in New York was governed by maritime law). In Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., the
Eleventh Circuit held that admiralty jurisdiction applied to a case in which the injury occurred
onshore while the cruise ship was docked in port. 394 F.3d 891, 901 (11th Cir. 2004). The Court
3
reasoned that the cruise line and passengers should not be subject to different laws as they
navigated through different jurisdictions or when the passenger went ashore at a port-of-call.
We see no reason that cruise lines’ liability to their passengers while at a
regularly-scheduled port-of-call and in a crew member’s company should vary
from port to port, especially given the potentially disruptive impact on maritime
commerce. Indeed, a ruling that admiralty jurisdiction did not extend literally
beyond the gangplank in this case would upset the very uniformity that the
Supreme Court has determined is so important for maritime activity.
Id. at 902. Plaintiff’s trip and fall occurred onboard the Pride of America while it was docked in
the territorial waters of Hawaii. As a result, her claims are governed by maritime law.
Additionally, Plaintiffs are bound by the Guest Ticket Contract which provides that “any and all
disputes whatsoever arising out of or relating to this Contract or the Guest’s cruise” are
“governed exclusively by the general maritime law of the United States” [ECF No. 10 Ex. A ¶
14] 1. Accordingly, Mr. Allen’s loss of consortium claim is dismissed.
II.
Claims against NCL Corporation Ltd. And NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.
NCL Corporation and NCL (Bahamas) seek dismissal from this action arguing that
Plaintiff’s negligence and vicarious liability claims should be brought only against NCL America
LLC, the operator of the Pride of America. The Guest Ticket Contract “is between the Carrier
and the Guest.” [ECF No. 10 Ex. A ¶ 1]. Plaintiff, who used the ticket for her voyage, is the
Guest. The contract expressly states that while “Carrier” usually means NCL (Bahamas), “for
voyages on the Pride of America, the word ‘Carrier’ shall mean NCL America LLC doing
business as NCL America and shall include its subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, assigns, as well as
the vessel Pride of America, or any other vessel substituted in its place, including the master and
crew of the vessel(s) for Guest’s voyage.” Id. The Guest Ticket Contract clearly governs the
relationship between the parties and designates NCL America LLC as the party responsible for
1 Plaintiff concedes validity of the Guest Ticket Contract by attaching it to the Amended Complaint and referencing
it in her allegations [ECF No. 10 ¶ 13].
4
the vessel and Plaintiff’s experience on the vessel. As such, NCL America LLC is the proper
defendant for Plaintiff’s negligence and vicarious liability claims.
In spite of the Guest Ticket Contract’s clear designation of NCL America LLC as the
Carrier and operator of the vessel, Plaintiff attempts to implicate NCL Corporation and NCL
(Bahamas) with vicarious liability and defective design allegations. Plaintiff’s vicarious liability
claims against NCL Corporation and NCL (Bahamas) fail because the crew of the Pride of
America is included within the definition of Carrier. NCL America LLC is the proper Defendant
employer for Plaintiff’s claims that the crew members should have prevented her accident.
Accordingly, the vicarious liability claims against NCL Corporation and NCL (Bahamas) must
be dismissed.
The only allegation in the Amended Complaint that could possibly implicate a party other
than NCL America LLC relates to the design/layout of the walkway. Plaintiff makes the sole
allegation that each defendant negligently approved, designed, constructed, and/or installed the
walkway on which she tripped without alleging any supporting facts [ECF No. 10 ¶¶ 25, 31, 44,
51]. Plaintiff alleges no facts that, if true, would give rise to a plausible inference that NCL
(Bahamas) or NCL Corporation was responsible for the walkway’s design, construction, or
installation. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim against NCL
(Bahamas) or NCL Corporation. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Accordingly, the negligence counts
against NCL Corporation and NCL (Bahamas) (Counts I and II) shall be dismissed.
5
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
1.
Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No.
15] is GRANTED.
2.
Counts I, II, IV, V, and VII are DISMISSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 26th day of July, 2017
________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?