Court dismisses COVID-19 'fear cases' against Princess Cruises
The plaintiffs did not test positive for the virus but sought to recover damages based solely on a fear of contracting COVID-19.
Thirteen lawsuits filed against Princess Cruises by passengers alleging “emotional distress” stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Grand Princess cruise ship have been dismissed by the District Court for the Central District of California. The court determined the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were in the “zone of danger” sufficiently to warrant a claim for emotional distress.
The initial case
The Grand Princess, heading for Hawaii, originally departed from San Fransisco on February 21, 2020, with 2,422 passengers and 1,111 crew members on board. Two weeks after its departure, 21 individuals tested positive for the coronavirus. Three days later, while still on the ship, two passengers filed a lawsuit against Princess Cruises alleging negligence and gross negligence for failing to take necessary precautions and employ proper screening protocols to keep its passengers and crew safe and healthy. The couple, Ronald and Eva Weissberger, did not test positive for COVID-19, nor did they suffer any virus symptoms.
The suit sought recovery for emotional distress based on their fear of contracting the virus while they were quarantined on the ship. The couple sought more than $1 million for putting their health at risk and causing trauma. Soon after the initial suit was filed, several other lawsuits with similar claims were filed against Princess Cruises. The court dubbed the cases as “fear cases” because the suits all involved plaintiffs who did not test positive or manifest any COVID-19 symptoms but sought to recover based solely on the fear of contracting the virus while on the cruise.
‘Negligent infliction of emotional distress’
Interestingly, because the ship was on a vessel on or over navigable waters, federal maritime law applied to the tort claims since the plaintiffs sought to recover damages for their emotional distress and trauma of fearing the contraction of the disease while on the vessel, the court found that the claims actually were claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).
For a plaintiff’s NIED claim to succeed in court under federal maritime law, the “zone of danger” test must be satisfied by proving the defendant’s conduct caused either (1) physical impact or (2) risk of immediate physical harm. The plaintiffs in these cases argued that they were entitled to recover for emotional danger under “risk of immediate physical harm,” as their physical health was put at risk when the cruise line allowed them to board the ship even though passengers who had disembarked the same day from a prior cruise had exhibited symptoms of COVID-19.
Princess Cruises responded with an argument that plaintiffs’ claims were barred because they failed to allege that they either contracted the disease or exhibited symptoms of the disease.
The court held that the plaintiffs could not recover for NIED based only on the proximity to people who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 on the ship, and their resulting fear of contracting the disease. The court also noted that mere exposure to the virus isn’t enough, without contraction of COVID-19 or manifestation of symptoms.
Ultimately, the court granted the motion to dismiss all “fear cases” with prejudice since the plaintiffs are no longer on the ship anymore so there is no longer a risk of contracting the virus on board.
Editor’s Note: Although the insurers were not directly implicated in this suit, had the court found for the plaintiffs, it would have lead to a windfall of lawsuits, some of which would undoubtedly be handed off to the appropriate insurer. A decision for the plaintiffs here would also have raised concerns of unlimited liability for restaurants and other businesses, where we have seen hundreds of COVID-19 and insurance cases filed, and which could potentially have cost millions of dollars across several different industries.
Related: