Nevor v. Moneypenny Holdings, LLC
842 F.3d 113
1st Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Kenneth Nevor, a professional seaman, injured his right biceps while transferring between two vessels owned by defendant Moneypenny Holdings, LLC in the British Virgin Islands.
- Nevor sued in admiralty under the Jones Act (negligence) and general maritime law (unseaworthiness); liability was conceded on appeal but liability findings supported by district court.
- After a four-day bench trial, the district court awarded $1,460,458 in compensatory damages (economic and non-economic) and later added $858,029 in prejudgment interest under Rhode Island’s statutory rate, for a total judgment of $2,318,487.
- Moneypenny appealed, contesting the sufficiency and amount of the damages award, the mitigation finding, and the award of prejudgment interest (including whether interest could be awarded given the Jones Act claim and whether interest could accrue on future damages).
- The First Circuit affirmed the damages award in full, rejected the mitigation challenge, held prejudgment interest was available because the award was at least partly based on unseaworthiness, but directed that prejudgment interest may not be awarded on damages for future losses and remanded to recalculate interest accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages excessive / speculative (future earnings & non-economic) | Nevor: evidence and expert testimony reliably show lost earning capacity and pain/suffering; award justified | Moneypenny: findings were speculative, not reliably demonstrated; awards excessive | Affirmed: district court’s fact findings and expert credibility determinations not clearly erroneous; awards not conscience-shocking |
| Failure to mitigate (vocational rehab) | Nevor: he was not notified or the program was unavailable; he sought therapy otherwise | Moneypenny: Nevor declined a prescribed vocational program and failed to mitigate | Rejected: defendant bore burden of proof; record supports district court’s implicit finding that rehabilitation was unavailable or not reasonably required |
| Availability of prejudgment interest when claims include Jones Act and unseaworthiness | Nevor: prejudgment interest available because award based in part on unseaworthiness | Moneypenny: Jones Act entitlement (if Jones Act disallows interest) bars prejudgment interest on mixed award | Held: prejudgment interest may be awarded on a mixed Jones Act/unseaworthiness bench judgment because unseaworthiness historically permits interest; no exceptional circumstances barred interest here |
| Prejudgment interest on future damages | Nevor: interest should attach to entire award as calculated | Moneypenny: interest cannot be applied to future damages | Held: Reversed in part — prejudgment interest cannot be awarded on future (prospective) damages; remand to exclude future losses when calculating prejudgment interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Reliance Steel Prods. Co. v. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 880 F.2d 575 (1st Cir. 1989) (standard of review for bench-trial factual findings)
- Borges v. Our Lady of the Sea Corp., 935 F.2d 436 (1st Cir. 1991) (prejudgment interest generally available in admiralty; not allowed on future damages)
- Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (1989) (prejudgment interest as part of full compensation)
- Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009) (Jones Act does not implicitly eliminate remedies historically available under general maritime law)
- Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990) (limits on creating new general maritime remedies where Jones Act supplies alternate recovery)
- Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523 (1983) (standard for demonstrating future wage increases)
- Limone v. United States, 579 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for non-economic damages)