- 1 - 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JEFFREY TODD KNUDSON, 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 14-14854 

vs. 

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

M/V AMERICAN SPIRIT, et al., 

Defendants. 

___________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION [DOC. 93], DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

CONTINGENT MOTIONS FOR CERTIFICATION OF 

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AND STAY [DOC. 95], AND 

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

OR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL [DOC. 92] 

This matter has come before the court on plaintiff Jeffrey Knudson’s 

motion for reconsideration of this court=s August 30, 2017 opinion and order 

insomuch as the order dismissed plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages for 

personal injury caused by unseaworthiness. Plaintiff also filed a 

contingent motion to certify order for interlocutory appeal and to stay 

proceedings pending appeal. Also before the court is defendants’, 

American Steamship Company and Liberty Steamship Company, motion 

for reconsideration or alternatively for certification of interlocutory appeal. 

 
- 2 - 

Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) of the Local Rules of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Michigan provides: 

Generally, and without restricting the court=s discretion, the 

court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that 

merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either 

expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must not 

only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the 

parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion 

have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will 

result in a different disposition of the case. 

In its August 30, 2017 order, the court concluded that punitive 

damages are not available in unseaworthiness actions and granted 

defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. The court relied 

on the Sixth Circuit case Miller v. American President Lines, 989 F.2d 1450 

(6th Cir. 1993), which held that punitive damages are not available in 

unseaworthiness actions for wrongful death. Plaintiff’s case alleges an 

unseaworthiness claim for nonfatal personal injuries, but not wrongful 

death. Plaintiff urges the court to reconsider its reliance on Miller, and to 

recognize that punitive damages are available in unseaworthiness actions 

involving personal injury. For the reasons explained below, the court 

agrees with plaintiff and grants his motion for reconsideration. 

In its order, the court also held that punitive damages are recoverable 

for maintenance and cure, finding an issue of fact whether defendants in 

 
- 3 - 

this case acted in bad faith with regard to the delay in paying maintenance 

benefits. Defendants have moved for reconsideration of the court’s denial 

of their motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on this issue. As 

explained below, the court denies defendants’ motion for reconsideration. 

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of when punitive damages 

could be sought in admiralty cases in Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 

557 U.S. 404 (2009). The Court looked at the history of the law prior to 

the enactment of the Jones Act in 1920, concluding that punitive damages 

were a generally available remedy at common law. The Court then 

recognized that the common law tradition of punitive damages extends to 

maritime claims. Id. at 414. The Jones Act created a statutory cause of 

action for negligence, which did not exist at common law. Importantly, the 

Jones Act did not eliminate pre-existing remedies available to seamen, 

including maintenance and cure and unseaworthiness. The Townsend

Court was concerned with a cause of action for maintenance and cure, and 

found no evidence in either common law or statute that such claims were 

excluded from the general admiralty rule allowing the recovery of punitive 

damages for an employer’s willful and wanton disregard of its obligations. 

Id. at 414-15. 

 
- 4 - 

The Court looked to one of its earlier cases, Miles v. Apex Marine 

Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990), which was concerned with whether general 

maritime law provided a cause of action for wrongful death based on 

unseaworthiness. The general maritime rule at common law denied any 

recovery for wrongful death. The legislature passed the Jones Act and the 

Death on the High Seas Act (“DOHSA”) to replace that rule and recognize 

an admiralty cause of action for wrongful death. However, Congress 

limited the damages available for wrongful death to those specifically 

provided in the two acts. Because the cause of action was created by 

Congress, the Court held that the damages recoverable are those specified 

by Congress. Id. at 32-36. For example, damages for wrongful death 

actions under the Jones Act and DOHSA are not available for loss of 

society or loss of future earnings, because such damages are not provided 

in the statutes. It follows that courts cannot look to common law remedies, 

like punitive damages, for the statutorily created action of wrongful death 

based on unseaworthiness. Townsend, 404 U.S. at 420 

The Townsend Court applied the principle from Miles and looked at 

whether “the general maritime cause of action (maintenance and cure) and 

the remedy (punitive damages) were well established before the passage 

of the Jones Act.” Townsend, 557 U.S. at 420. The Court found that both 
- 5 - 

were well established, and that “Congress has [not] spoken directly” to the 

matter. Id. (citations omitted). “The availability of punitive damages for 

maintenance and cure actions is entirely faithful to these ‘general principles 

of maritime tort law,’ and no statute casts doubt on their availability under 

general maritime law.” Id. at 421. 

The Sixth Circuit, in Miller, addressed the issue whether punitive 

damages are recoverable in a general maritime unseaworthiness action for 

wrongful death. The court applied the reasoning of Miles in holding that 

punitive damages are not recoverable because the cause of action for 

wrongful death is created by statute, so only those damages provided by 

statute are recoverable. This court relied on the holding in Miller when it 

granted defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and found 

that punitive damages were not available in Mr. Kundson’s 

unseaworthiness action. However, the case before this court is 

distinguishable from Miller in that Knudson’s claim is not one for wrongful 

death, but rather for personal injuries due to unseaworthiness. 

General unseaworthiness claims involving personal injury, as 

opposed to wrongful death, were recognized at common law prior to the 

Jones Act. Furthermore, as discussed above, punitive damages were 

available for maritime claims at common law. Congress has not legislated 
- 6 - 

to limit recovery of nonpecuniary loss in a seaman’s action for non-fatal 

injuries. Applying the reasoning of Townsend and Miles, plaintiff in this 

case may seek punitive damages for personal injuries in his 

unseaworthiness claim against defendants. This result is not inconsistent 

with the holding of Miller which is limited to an unseaworthiness case 

involving wrongful death. 

The same reasoning supports the court’s prior opinion concluding 

that plaintiff can pursue his claim for punitive damages due to defendants’ 

alleged bad faith delay in paying maintenance benefits. The court is not of 

the opinion that “such order involves a controlling question of law as to 

which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an 

immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate 

termination of the litigation[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 

 Now, therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion for reconsideration is 

GRANTED. 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s contingent 

motions to certify order for interlocutory appeal and to stay proceedings 

pending appeal are DENIED. 

 
- 7 - 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for 

reconsideration or alternate motion for certification of interlocutory appeal is 

DENIED. 

It is so ordered. 

Dated: October 24, 2017 

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on 

October 24, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

s/Marcia Beauchemin 

Deputy Clerk