Cruise Ship Law

In re: the EXXON VALDEZ, GRANT BAKER, et al., as representatives of the Mandatory Punitive Damages Class, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v. JOSEPH HAZELWOOD, Defendant, and EXXON CORPORATION; EXXON SHIPPING COMPANY,Defendants-Appellants. In re: the EXXON VALDEZ, GRANT BAKER, et al., as representatives of the Mandatory Punitive Damages Class, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v. EXXON CORPORATION; EXXON SHIPPING COMPANY, Defendants, and JOSEPH HAZELWOOD,Defendant-Appellant. DANIEL R. CALHOUN; BRADFORD J. CHISHOLM; DAVID P. CLARKE;THOMAS S. MCALLISTER; PHILLIP G. MCCRUDDEN; MICHAEL J. MCCLENAGHAN; GUY PIERCEY;HUGH WISNER; GRANT C. BAKER; LARRY L. DOOLEY; KIM J. EWERS; JOHN W. HERSCHLEB;KENT HERSCHLEB; DAVID B. HORNE; MICHAEL J. OWECKE; GERALD E. THORNE; GEORGE A.GORDAOFF; OLD HARBOR NATIVE CORPORATION; TIMBERLINE, INC.; BARBARA BROWN; JOHNFOGES; JAMIE L. HALLADAY; CHARLES MCMAHON; JENNIFER BRIGGS; TERRI MAST; MARK T.COLES; FRED GALICANO; MIKE HOLLERBEKE; KATHY BRYAN; VINCENT LIBED; ARTHUDDLESTON; ROBERT LOVE; ROXANE VILLAUEVA; MARCELO ROMBAOA; SCOTT HULBERT; BRIANGILLIS; FRANK MICHAEL CARLSON; ELENOR MCMULLEN; NATIVE VILLAGE OF LARSEN BAY;NATIVE VILLAGE OF CHENEGA BAY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EXXON CORPORATION;EXXON SHIPPING COMPANY; JOSEPH HAZELWOOD, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-35191, No. 97-35192, Nos. 97-35193, 97-35235
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
270 F.3d 1215; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 24029; 2001 Cal. DailyOp. Service 9528; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 11915
May 3, 1999, Argued and Submitted, Seattle, Washington
November 7, 2001, Filed

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. D.C. No. CV-89-00085-HRH, D.C. No. CV-89-00095-HRH. H. Russell Holland, District Judge, Presiding.

DISPOSITION: $5 billion punitive damages award was vacated and case was remanded to determine lower award in light of standards recently established by the United States Supreme Court. Summary judgment was affirmed in part but reversed as to specific classes of plaintiffs and remanded for latter group to establish allowable damages.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant corporation and plaintiff class cross-appealed from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, entering a punitive damage award against the corporation in the class' action alleging damage to economic expectations for state commercial fishermen due to an oil spill by the corporation.

OVERVIEW: The corporation claimed that the punitive damage award was barred as against public policy, that the punitive damage award was barred by res judicata, that common law punitive damages remedy was preempted by the remedies in the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.S. §§ 1251-1387, that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to award punitive damages, and that the punitive damage award was unconstitutionally excessive. The class claimed that the district court erroneously granted summary judgment against the claimants who suffered purely economic injury on account of the oil spill. The appellate court held that, although there was substantial evidence to support the jury verdict and damage awards, the district court failed to review the constitutionality of the punitive damage award under the appropriate standards. The court concluded that the punitive damage award was too high for its required review without the district court's initial review. The court further held that the district court should have determined whether certain claimants could recover purely economic damages due to the oil spill.

OUTCOME: The judgment was vacated in part and remanded regarding whether the punitive damage award was unconstitutionally excessive, and whether certain claimants could recover purely economic damages due to the oil spill. The judgment was affirmed in part regarding the remaining claims.