By Joyce Hanson

Law360 (June 16, 2020, 5:02 PM EDT) -- Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. has asked a California federal court to toss a negligence suit by passengers including a woman whose husband allegedly got COVID-19 while aboard ship and later died, saying U.S. Supreme Court rulings in maritime cases limit punitive damages even if the claims go forward.

The cruise company, a Carnival Corp. subsidiary, moved Monday to dismiss the suit initially brought by passengers Debra and Michael Dalton and later joined by Susan Dorety, whose husband died of the virus. Princess argued that the passengers have lodged "an unprecedented theory of liability" for emotional distress that the Supreme Court had previously warned against in a 1997 case.

In 1997 ruling, the Supreme Court held in Metro-North Commuter R. Co. v. Buckley that a plaintiff can't recover for emotional distress stemming from potential exposure to a disease "unless, and until, he manifests symptoms of a disease," Princess argued.

Also, Princess said, the Daltons' request for punitive damages is insufficient under strict standards governing such damages in maritime claims. The cruise company pointed to a 2019 high court ruling in The Dutra Group v. Batterton , saying courts must decide whether punitive damages have traditionally been awarded in a certain type of case when there is no federal statute authorizing such damages.

"Batterton held that punitive damages cannot be recovered on claims in admiralty where there is no historical basis for allowing such damages," Princess said.

Further, the cruise line argued, the Supreme Court in its 1990 ruling in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp. said courts must proceed cautiously "in light of Congress' persistent pursuit of uniformity in the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction" when determining whether to permit punitive damages.

The Daltons, a couple from Missouri, initially brought suit against Princess on March 13, seeking more than $1 million in damages over what they say was the cruise line's "lackadaisical approach" to the health and safety of passengers and crew members.

"It was foreseeable at all times that Princess could be hauled into court in the state of California for conduct that caused injuries," the Daltons' complaint said.

Not only did the cruise line know that at least two passengers who disembarked the Grand Princess on Feb. 21 had COVID-19 symptoms, but it was aware that 62 passengers on the Daltons' cruise beginning on that date had remained aboard the ship from the prior voyage, according to the suit.

"Those 62 carry-over passengers were exposed to the passengers that were confirmed to be infected," the Daltons said. "Some of the infected passengers to whom the carry-over passengers were exposed later died from coronavirus."

Susan Dorety then joined the Daltons' suit as an intervenor, claiming on April 14 that Princess was negligent in failing to timely remove her husband Michael from the ship after repeated pleas and after he exhibited symptoms of COVID-19. The cruise line's "lackadaisical approach" to the safety of the passengers and crew led to Michael's death and to Susan testing positive for the coronavirus, according to her complaint.

She said she and her husband, who served as a firefighter for 39 years, were celebrating their 40th wedding anniversary on a Grand Princess cruise out of San Francisco in late February and early March. The cruise line eventually docked in Oakland, California, and quarantined guests to their rooms, where the Texas-based couple stayed for six days, according to the complaint.

As Michael Dorety experienced symptoms of the virus, his wife repeatedly called Princess' emergency line seeking assistance. A doctor later came to their room, confirmed he had a fever and gave the couple Tamiflu and Tylenol. At that point, Michael Dorety was unresponsive, according to the complaint.

About three days after his symptoms developed, Susan Dorety convinced the cruise line to let them off the ship to see medical personnel from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention who were on the dock. Michael Dorety was immediately taken to a hospital, tested positive for the coronavirus and struggled to stay alive, according to the complaint.

"The doctor called Susan Dorety to tell her that her husband was dying," the complaint said. "Susan Dorety and her children listened as the doctor counted down Michael Dorety's heartbeats until he was gone. Michael Dorety died alone."

Dorety's suit includes a claim of negligence and a claim of gross negligence, and she is seeking at least $1 million in actual and exemplary damages.

Gerald Singleton, a lawyer for the Daltons and Susan Dorety, told Law360 in an email Tuesday that Princess' dismiss motion is meritless, saying the cruise line knew that the coronavirus was on its ships and deliberately downplayed the danger of infection to their passengers.

"As [Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases] said about cruise ships, 'you couldn't ask for a better incubator for infection.' Despite this, they encouraged their passengers to dine, swim, dance, and socialize together, virtually guaranteeing that everyone on the ship would be exposed to the virus," Singleton wrote. "They deliberately chose not to act until it was too late because they put their profits over the health of their passengers."

Representatives for Princess did not immediately respond Tuesday to requests for comment.

Princess is represented by Jeffrey B. Maltzman, Edgar R. Nield, Gabrielle De Santis Nield and Rafaela P. Castells of Maltzman & Partners PA.

Debra and Michael Dalton are represented by Gerald Singleton and Ross J. Peabody of the Singleton Law Firm APC, Mikal C. Watts and Alicia D. O'Neill of Watts Guerra LLP and Andres Pereira of the Andres Pereira Law Firm PC.

Susan Dorety is represented by Gerald Singleton and J. Ross Peabody of Singleton Law Firm APC and Rusty Hardin, Ryan Higgins and Daniel Dutko of Rusty Hardin & Associates LLP.

The case is Dalton et al. v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd., case number 2:20-cv-02458, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

--Additional reporting by Sarah Jarvis. Editing by Jay Jackson Jr.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.