Case: 18-14920 Date Filed: 06/28/2019 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-14920
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-23672-UU
DEREK EDWARD ESLINGER,
Plaintiff,
TARA LYNN ESLINGER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CELEBRITY CRUISES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 28, 2019)
Before MARTIN, NEWSOM, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-14920 Date Filed: 06/28/2019 Page: 2 of 5
Appellant, Tara Lynn Eslinger, appeals the district court’s order dismissing
her claim for loss of consortium resulting from an injury sustained by her husband,
Derek, onboard the Equinox pleasure cruise ship. Derek filed suit against
Celebrity Cruises, Inc., alleging that the negligence of the Equinox crew was the
cause of his injury, and Tara asserted her own claim for the alleged deprivation of
the affection, solace, care, comfort, companionship, conjugal life, fellowship,
society, and assistance of her husband that resulted from his injury. Celebrity
moved to dismiss Tara’s loss of consortium claim arguing that her claim was not
authorized under general maritime law. The district court granted the motion to
dismiss, and we affirm.
I.
We review de novo the district court’s order dismissing Tara’s loss of
consortium claim. Montgomery Cty Com’n v. Fed. Housing Finance Agency,
776
F.3d 1247, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015). We accept the well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Tara.
Id.
II.
Tara argues on appeal that the district court erred in dismissing her claim for
loss of consortium because it did not examine the exceptional circumstances
related to her claim, and it did not consider Derek’s limited rights and remedies as
2
Case: 18-14920 Date Filed: 06/28/2019 Page: 3 of 5
a non-seafarer passenger. She also contends that the district court erred in relying
on our circuit precedent because it has been called into question by the Supreme
Court’s decision in Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend,
557 U.S. 404,
129 S. Ct.
2561 (2009).
“Under the prior precedent rule, we are bound to follow a prior binding
precedent ‘unless and until it is overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme
Court.’” United States v. Vega-Castillo,
540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008)
(quoting United States v. Brown,
342 F.3d 1245, 1246 (11th Cir. 2003)). Our court
has held that plaintiffs may not recover punitive damages, including loss of
consortium damages, for personal injury claims under federal maritime law. See In
re Amtrak Sunset Ltd. Train Crash in Bayou Canot, Ala. on Sept. 22, 1993,
121
F.3d 1421, 1429 (11th Cir. 1997); Lollie v. Brown Marine Serv., Inc.,
995 F.2d
1565, 1565 (11th Cir. 1993) (“[N]either the Jones Act nor general maritime law
authorizes recovery for loss of society or consortium in personal injury cases.”).
Generally, “[p]ersonal-injury claims by cruise ship passengers, complaining
of injuries suffered at sea, are within the admiralty jurisdiction of the district
courts.” Caron v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd.,
910 F.3d 1359, 1365 (11th Cir. 2018).
See also Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Line, Inc.,
867 F.2d 1318, 1320–21 (11th Cir.
1989) (stating that regardless of whether a claim is brought under diversity or
3
Case: 18-14920 Date Filed: 06/28/2019 Page: 4 of 5
admiralty jurisdiction, general maritime law will apply to the claim when it
concerns personal injuries on a ship in navigable waters). Thus, maritime law
governs. Under our precedent, Tara’s claim for loss of consortium is not
cognizable. Contrary to Tara’s assertion, nothing in the Atlantic Sounding decision
undermines our prior holdings.1 In Atlantic Sounding, the Supreme Court held
that, as a matter of general maritime law, a seaman may recover punitive damages
for the willful and wanton disregard of the maintenance and cure obligation in the
appropriate case.
Id. at 424, 129 S. Ct. at 2575. That decision did not apply to loss
of consortium claims, and Tara fails to explain why passenger spouses, but not
those of seamen, should be permitted to recover for loss of consortium. See Miles
v. Apex Marine Corp.,
498 U.S. 19, 31–33,
111 S. Ct. 317, 325–26 (1990) (holding
that a maritime claim for the wrongful death of a seaman did not include loss of
consortium damages because such damages were unavailable under the statutory
schemes of the Jones Act and the Death on the High Seas Act).
III.
1
See Petersen v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 748 F. App’x 246, 251–52 (11th Cir. 2018)
(rejecting argument that the Atlantic Sounding decision called into question our prior precedent
that plaintiffs cannot recover loss of consortium damages for personal injuries sustained aboard a
vessel) (persuasive authority).
4
Case: 18-14920 Date Filed: 06/28/2019 Page: 5 of 5
After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that
the district court did not err in dismissing Tara’s claim for loss of consortium under
our circuit precedent. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of dismissal.
AFFIRMED.
5
