60 V.I. 91
Superior Court of The Virgin I...2014Background
- Der Weer died of lung cancer after 30+ years at a St. Croix oil refinery; his widow Lenore Der Weer was appointed personal representative to pursue wrongful death and survival claims.
- The Estate filed a wrongful death action in 2005 against 30 defendants alleging exposure to asbestos and toxins caused death; punitive damages were sought.
- Litwin and others moved to strike the punitive damages claim in 2009; the Estate did not oppose.
- Litwin resolved its claims with many defendants, rendering those joinders moot, but two Hess Defendants remained, and their joinder kept the motion alive.
- The court held punitive damages are not recoverable in a wrongful death action under Virgin Islands law, so the punitive damages demand was stricken as to the surviving Defendants, while moot as to settled defendants.
- The court clarified that Ettienne is not controlling here because this case involved a survival claim, whereas the Estate’s action here was solely wrongful death under §76.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Litwin’s motion to strike punitive damages is pending. | Litwin’s March 3, 2014 Response shows withdrawal; motion moot. | Motion remained pending; not withdrawn. | Motion remains pending but moot as to all settled parties. |
| Whether the motion is moot as to all non-settled Defendants. | Settlements render the motion moot for settled parties. | Mootness limited to those parties; Hess Defendants still at issue. | Moot as to settled defendants; not moot for Hess Defendants. |
| Whether punitive damages are recoverable in Virgin Islands wrongful death actions. | Punitive damages may be recoverable in some survival contexts; statutory scheme allows punitive in certain claims. | Wrongful death actions under 5 V.I.C. §76 permit only compensatory damages; no punitive damages. | Punitive damages are not permitted in wrongful death actions; strike granted. |
| Whether Ettienne controls this case to render the motion moot. | Ettienne supports denying the strike. | Ettienne is persuasive but not binding; this case lacks a survival claim and law changed. | Ettienne not controlling; ruling based on §76 scope and wrongful death doctrine. |
| Did the court appropriately treat the motion as a strike of a damages demand rather than a separate cause of action? | Punitive damages labeled as a demand, not a separate claim. | Still a motion to strike a damages demand. | Treat as strike of punitive damages demand; granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Daly, 55 V.I. 66 (Virgin Islands Super. Ct. 2010) (addressed punitive damages in estates/survival context; not controlling here)
- Williams v. Dowling, 318 F.2d 642 (3d Cir. 1963) (wrongful death is statutory; no common-law punitive damages)
- Mingolla v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 893 F. Supp. 499 (D. V.I. 1995) (punitive damages not in §76 wrongful death damages)
- Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., 56 Cal.4th 1113 (Cal. 2013) (wrongful death punitive damages not available absent survival context)
- Carter v. City of Birmingham, 444 So.2d 373 (Ala. 1983) (only compensatory damages under wrongful death statutes)