450 F.Supp.3d 242
E.D.N.Y2020Background
- On May 30, 2015 Williams slipped aboard the Maersk Detroit. He was evaluated ashore June 3, 2015 (diagnosed with a thigh strain and FFD), then diagnosed NFD for June 10–13 and pursued extensive follow-up care through 2016.
- Treating physicians diagnosed meralgia/ lateral femoral cutaneous neuropathy, left inguinal hernia, lumbar radiculopathy/stenosis and other conditions; some treating doctors attributed symptoms to the May 30 fall, others later emphasized preexisting lumbar disease.
- Williams sought maintenance and cure from Maersk; Maersk (through claims manager Alison Brett) treated the union insurance as primary, requested records, sought an IME and an outside medical review (GW), and declined to pay ongoing maintenance and cure pending investigation.
- Maersk eventually paid a maintenance check covering disputed days in December 2017; it did not clearly pay cure for certain early medical visits (June 3 and June 9, 2015), and learned mid-litigation that Williams had a 2012 lumbar injury he failed to disclose.
- Williams sued under the Jones Act and general maritime law, seeking maintenance, cure, and punitive damages for Maersk’s alleged bad‑faith denial of maintenance and cure. Maersk moved for summary judgment on the punitive damages claim.
- The district court denied Maersk’s motion, finding triable issues on whether Maersk acted in bad faith (investigation sufficiency, reliance on non‑treating opinions, delayed IME, and failure to pay cure for early visits), though the court expressed skepticism that Williams will prevail at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maersk acted in bad faith in denying maintenance & cure (punitive damages) | Maersk unreasonably denied/ delayed maintenance & cure despite treating doctors linking symptoms to the fall; promises and NFD slips created reliance | Maersk had conflicting medical evidence, relied reasonably on GW review and counsel, and investigated before withholding payments | Denied summary judgment to Maersk — factual disputes (conflicting records, reliance on consultant, investigation conduct) preclude disposition on bad faith |
| Whether Maersk conducted a sufficient, good‑faith investigation | Brett failed to seek clarifying input from treating physicians, scheduled an IME that was delayed two years, and relied on counsel/consultant to deny benefits | Maersk reasonably sought records, used an outside medical review, and attempted (but did not complete) IME; reliance on conflicting opinions was reasonable | Court found disputed facts about reasonableness and thoroughness of investigation; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether Maersk’s communications constituted an unconditional promise to pay maintenance & cure (estoppel/reliance) | Maersk’s benefits letter and emails led Williams/ providers to rely on payment if NFD slips provided | Maersk’s communications made payments conditional on treatment being related to the onboard injury; no unconditional promise | Court held communications were not clear unconditional promises; this does not resolve bad‑faith claim and factual issues remain |
| Whether Williams’ concealment of prior back injury bars punitive damages | Williams concealed a 2012 lumbar injury and made false application/deposition statements; this undercuts credibility and may bar relief | Maersk argues equitable bar; concealment may defeat causation but does not automatically negate punitive damages claim without further proof | Court held concealment raises credibility and causation issues but did not grant summary judgment; factual disputes remain for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Messier v. Bouchard Transp., 688 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2012) (seaman entitled to maintenance and cure for injuries occurring while in service of the ship)
- Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1962) (ambiguities in maintenance and cure resolved in favor of seaman)
- Rodriguez Alvarez v. Bahama Cruise Line, 898 F.2d 312 (2d Cir. 1990) (shipowner must investigate in good faith; bad faith supports extra damages)
- Morales v. Garijak, Inc., 829 F.2d 1355 (5th Cir. 1987) (framework: reasonable denial = limited liability; unreasonable denial = compensatory; callous/indifferent conduct = punitive)
- Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (U.S. 2009) (punitive damages available for willful and wanton denial of maintenance and cure)
- Tullos v. Resource Drilling, Inc., 750 F.2d 380 (5th Cir. 1985) (examples of bad faith: lax investigation, termination after counsel retained, failure to reinstate after new diagnosis)
- McWilliams v. Texaco, Inc., 781 F.2d 514 (5th Cir. 1986) (owner may request reasonable documentation before commencing payment)
- Hicks v. Tug PATRIOT, 783 F.3d 939 (2d Cir. 2015) (discussing punitive damages and attorney’s fees in maintenance and cure context)