Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-19-13750/USCOURTS-ca11-19-13750-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH] 

 

[IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-13750

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-23395-FAM

THOMAS HEINEN, 

ANGELINA KUNZ, 

DAVID KUNZ, 

JACOB KUNZ, 

EDNA NICKERSON, 

GRACE KUNZ, 

MIRANDA DELANEY, 

BRANDEN DELANEY, 

PENNY BUCKNER, 

RYAN ENG, 

JOANN RUIZ, 

ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ, 

SAVANNA VALDEZ, 

CLAYTON MCDONALD, 

JOSH RUSSELL,

BETTY JOHNSON, 

MICHAEL JOHNSON, 

TAYLOR JOHNSON, 

MARIAH JOHNSON, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 versus

USCA11 Case: 19-13750 Date Filed: 03/30/2020 Page: 1 of 6
2

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(March 30, 2020)

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

This is a negligence case. The appellants bought a cruise from the appellee 

Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD. The cruise was set to sail from Galveston, Texas in 

August of 2017. Hurricane Harvey had other plans, though. The superstorm 

struck Galveston around that time, forcing Royal Caribbean to cancel the cruise.

The appellants allege here that Royal Caribbean didn’t act quickly enough. 

They claim that the cruise line delayed cancellation until the day the cruise was set 

to embark. This delay purportedly caused them to travel to Galveston and weather 

hurricane-force conditions. So they sued Royal Caribbean in the Southern District 

of Florida, alleging counts of negligence and negligent infliction of emotional 

distress.

But the appellants’ first complaint had a problem: It failed to identify the 

individual harms the appellants suffered due to Royal Caribbean’s purported 

USCA11 Case: 19-13750 Date Filed: 03/30/2020 Page: 2 of 6
3

negligence. The district court highlighted this deficiency for the appellants and 

grant them leave to amend. The appellants promised that they would provide

specific allegations of harm in their amendment. But the district court held that 

their second attempt proved no better: Though the amended complaint added that 

each appellant suffered “physical and emotional damage,” it still failed to specify 

their individual physical and emotional injuries. Rather, in shotgun fashion, the 

appellants ticked off a laundry list of injuries at the end of their complaint, without 

specifying who suffered what. The court held that these allegations failed to state a 

claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It dismissed the action with 

prejudice. This is the appellants’ appeal.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for 

failure to state a claim. Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1288 

(11th Cir. 2010). To state a claim, a complaint must allege enough facts to make 

the claim not merely possible, but plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009). We accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe

them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. But we need not accept as true 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements.” Id. Finally, to prove a negligence or negligent-inflictionof-emotional-distress claim, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions 

caused the plaintiff to suffer actual harm. See Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 

USCA11 Case: 19-13750 Date Filed: 03/30/2020 Page: 3 of 6
4

F.3d 1333, 1336–38 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).

1

 A negligent-infliction-ofemotional-distress claim also requires an allegation of “mental or emotional harm . 

. . that is caused by the negligence of another and that is not directly brought about 

by a physical injury, but that may manifest itself in physical symptoms.” Id. at 

1337–38.

The district court rightly dismissed the appellants’ complaint for failure to 

state a claim. For starters, the appellants failed to specify their individual physical 

and emotional harms. Although each appellant alleged that Royal Caribbean’s 

delay caused them “physical and emotional damage,” that threadbare allegation 

does not suffice without factual allegations in support. See id. The only specific 

factual support for the appellants’ threadbare allegations of harm comes in a

combined paragraph listing what seems to be every possible injury imaginable. 

Among many others, the injury list includes claims of “injury about their body and 

extremities,” “physical pain and suffering,” “disfigurement,” “aggravation of any 

previously existing conditions,” and “physical handicap.” Yet the appellants still 

fail to identify which appellant suffered which injury. For example, is Mr. Heinen 

disfigured? Did Ms. Ruiz aggravate a pre-existing condition? Does Mr. Russell

1 We asked the parties to answer whether the district court exercised diversity or maritime 

jurisdiction over this case. Both agree that maritime jurisdiction applies, and so do we. 

Accordingly, federal maritime law governs the elements of the appellants’ tort claims. See 

Chaparro, 693 F.3d at 1336.

USCA11 Case: 19-13750 Date Filed: 03/30/2020 Page: 4 of 6
5

now have a physical handicap? Surely each appellant did not suffer every injury 

listed in the kitchen-sink paragraph the appellants add at the end. In any event, the 

complaint does not plausibly allege that they have done so. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

678–79. Because the appellants fail to connect their general allegations of 

“physical and emotional damage” with the specific facts they pleaded in bulk, we 

must ignore that threadbare assertion of harm. See id. And without sufficiently 

plausible allegations of harm, the appellants cannot state a claim. See Chaparro, 

693 F.3d at 1336–38.

But this does not end our inquiry. Alongside their allegations of physical 

and emotional harm, the appellants also claim that Royal Caribbean’s actions 

caused them financial harm—they had to pay out-of-pocket expenses while 

trapped in Texas during the storm. Unlike their allegations of physical and 

emotional injury, the appellants (with one exception) specify these out-of-pocket 

expenses. So their allegations of financial harm have factual support. See Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678–79.

Yet the appellants still fail to state a claim, because recovery for their

financial injuries is barred under the maritime economic-loss rule. Under federal 

maritime law, a plaintiff suing for an unintentional tort cannot recover “for 

economic losses not associated with physical damages.” Kingston Shipping Co. v. 

Roberts, 667 F.2d 34, 35 (11th Cir. 1982); Tampa Hercules Carriers, Inc. v. 

USCA11 Case: 19-13750 Date Filed: 03/30/2020 Page: 5 of 6
6

Florida, 720 F.2d 1201, 1202 (11th Cir. 1983), affirmed by operation of law en 

banc, 728 F.2d 1359 (11th Cir. 1984). The appellants do not allege that their outof-pocket expenses stem from physical injury to their person or their property—

they allege purely economic losses stemming from the additional time they spent 

in Texas. And since their only supported allegation of harm is not cognizable 

under our precedent, the appellants fail to state a claim. See Smith v. United States, 

873 F.3d 1348, 1351 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding that a “plaintiff must plausibly 

allege all the elements of the claim for relief” to survive a motion to dismiss).

Finally, even if the economic-loss rule did not bar the appellants’ claims for 

financial injury, the appellants’ financial injuries still could not support their 

claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The damages involved in that 

tort are emotional, not economic. The tort compensates a plaintiff for “mental or 

emotional harm.” See Chaparro, 693 F.3d at 1337–38. But the appellants do not 

claim that their out-of-pocket expenses flow from mental or emotional harm. So 

their allegations of financial harm cannot sustain their negligent-infliction-ofemotional-distress claims.

The district court’s judgment is AFFRIMED.

USCA11 Case: 19-13750 Date Filed: 03/30/2020 Page: 6 of 6