Cruise Ship Law

DOUGLAS SPECTOR, ANA SPECTOR, JULIA HOLLENBECK, DAVID KILLOUGH, and RODGER PETERS, Appellants v. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. D/B/ANORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE, Appellee

NO. 01-02-00017-CV
COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FIRST DISTRICT, HOUSTON
2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 2941
March 30, 2004, Opinion Issued

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant consumers sought review of an order from the 270th District Court, Harris County (Texas), which denied class certification in the consumers' lawsuit against appellee cruise line for contract breach, fraud or fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices, and disability discrimination.

OVERVIEW: The consumers alleged that the cruise line falsely represented that its vessels or related port excursions were accessible to mobility-impaired passengers and that those passengers would have assistance on and off the ship. The court, in affirming the denial of certification, concluded that the consumers had failed to preserve a spoliation argument for review. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or act improperly by ruling without reviewing sealed volumes of documents that it had been told related to the issue of numerosity, which was not seriously contested. The denial of class certification was proper because the consumers did not show that common issues predominated, as required by former Tex. R. Civ. P. 42(b)(4) (renumbered as Tex. R. Civ. P. 42(b)(3)). As to the claim of deceptive practices, the trial court reasonably could have determined that individual reliance inquiries under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.50(a)(1)(A), (B) (2002) would predominate over common ones. Determination of oral contract terms also required individual inquiries, as did unjust enrichment allegations. Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. ch. 121 applied only to vessels that sailed in Texas waters.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the trial court's order denying class certification.