No limit on punitive damages in Washington State Court for willful failure to pay maintenance and cure


Under US federal maritime law, a seaman who is injured or becomes ill while in the service of a ship is entitled to receive “maintenance and cure” from the shipowner regardless of causation or fault. Maintenance is a daily subsistence allowance paid to the seaman during the period of his recovery to cover room and board. Cure refers to the cost of the seaman’s medical treatment. Both must be paid by the shipowner until the seaman has reached maximum medical improvement.


Court found applicable in Exxon Shipping v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008). 1


The Washington Supreme Court described the facts in the case as follows.


Molly Henry (Associate) Keesal Young & Logan


Molly is a graduate of Smith College. She earned her J.D. degree in 2008 from the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, where she graduated summa cum laude and was nominated to the Order of the Coif. Molly’s practice focuses on maritime litigation. Email: molly.henry@kyl.com


On March 15, 2012, the Washington State Supreme Court gave shipowners a very good reason to ensure timely and fair payment of maintenance and cure to injured seamen.


In Clausen v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., the court held that a jury’s ability to award punitive damages for the shipowner’s willful failure to pay maintenance and cure is not limited to the 1:1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages that the US Supreme


Dana Clausen sustained an injury to his lower back, neck and hand while lifting a heavy piece of steel aboard the F/V BERING STAR in February of 2006. He was sent home for medical treatment. In the months following his accident, Clausen had “persistent difficulties” getting Icicle and its adjusting firm to pay his maintenance and cure. In May, the adjuster confirmed to Icicle that Clausen’s injuries were likely career ending and recommended that Icicle settle with Clausen before he obtained legal representation.


However, a June 2006 letter from Clausen’s doctor to Icicle recommended further treatment and possible spinal surgery. Clausen was never told about the letter. In September of 2007, Icicle filed suit in federal court against Clausen to terminate mainten- ance and cure, alleging that Clausen had impeded their ability to investigate his claim. In the course of defending against Icicle’s claims, Clausen learned that Icicle had in fact closely monitored his condition.


Clausen obtained counsel and filed his own suit in state court alleging Jones Act negligence, unseaworth- iness, and wrongful withholding of maintenance and cure. The jury found that Icicle had been negligent and awarded Clausen $453,100 in damages for his injuries. They also found that Icicle was willful or


1 The Due Process clause of the United States’ Constitution provides the upper limit on the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded against a party.


Icicle never argued that the punitive damages award at issue violated Due Process. Therefore, this case did not test the upper


limit of permissible punitive damages. A number of state laws provide for an upper limit ratio of 3:1 punitive to compensatory damages, but here the punitive damages were less than 3:1 to the compensatory damages (inclusive of attorney’s fees), so that limit was similarly not implicated.


7


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16