272 P.3d 827
Wash.2012Background
- Clausesen, a seaman, sued Icicle Seafoods for maintenance and cure, Jones Act negligence, and related issues after a severe back/neck/hand injury.
- Icicle allegedly withheld maintenance and cure, paying only $20 per day and delaying medical treatment as part of its misconduct.
- Jury found Icicle negligent under the Jones Act and willful in withholding maintenance and cure, awarding compensatory and punitive damages.
- Posttrial, Clausen sought attorney fees; the court awarded fees as a court-controlled, postverdict calculation (lodestar with adjustments).
- Icicle appealed, challenging both the attorney-fees ruling (jurisdiction of judge vs jury) and the punitive-damages calculation under maritime law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney fees post-verdict; who determines the award? | Clausen seeks court-determined fees. | Icicle argues jury should determine fees as punitive. | Court, not jury, determines attorney-fees award. |
| Punitive damages cap under maritime law? | Exaddons should permit severer punitive award. | Award capped by Exxon ratio limits. | Punitive award not capped at 1:1; ratio varies by culpability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1962) (fees recoverable for maintenance and cure when willful)
- Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525 (U.S. 1938) (maintenance and cure rights and related remedies)
- Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (U.S. 2009) ( Townsend clarifies punitive-fees in maintenance and cure context)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (U.S. 2008) (1:1 punitive-to-compensatory cap in maritime cases; variable limits by facts)
- Summit Valley Indus., Inc. v. Local 112, 456 U.S. 717 (U.S. 1982) (equitable basis for attorney-fee shifting; American rule exception)
- Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240 (U.S. 1975) (equitable basis for fee recovery in certain contexts)
- Incandela v. American Dredging Co., 659 F.2d 11 (2d Cir. 1981) (fee award after willfulness finding; equitable basis)
- Deisler v. McCormack Aggregates Co., 54 F.3d 1074 (3d Cir. 1995) (use of percentage-time segregation to allocate fees)
- Willow Inn, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 399 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2005) (attorney-fee considerations in punitive contexts)