Armstrong v. Paramount Global

Background

Vernon Armstrong alleges that he was exposed to asbestos while serving in the Navy and later developed lung cancer. His complaint asserts negligence, strict liability in tort, maritime negligence, maritime strict liability, and contractor-liability claims against various defendants, including Foster Wheeler LLC. He also seeks punitive damages based on the defendants’ alleged willful or reckless failure to warn him about asbestos products.

Foster Wheeler moved to dismiss or strike the punitive-damages claim, arguing that maritime law does not allow punitive damages for the claims at issue.

Maritime Law

The court applied the federal maritime-law test for tort claims. That test asks whether the alleged conduct occurred on navigable water or was caused by a vessel on navigable water, and whether the incident could affect maritime commerce and had a substantial connection to traditional maritime activity.

The court found both requirements plausibly satisfied. Armstrong alleged exposure while aboard launched vessels and during activities involving products designed and supplied for installation aboard ships. The court concluded that some exposure on a vessel in navigable waters was enough at the pleading stage, even though the complaint also referred to other exposure. The court did not analyze a premises-liability allegation involving the Idaho National Laboratory because that allegation did not involve Foster Wheeler.

Punitive Damages

The court concluded that Armstrong had not shown punitive damages were available under maritime law for negligence or strict-liability claims. It distinguished a Supreme Court decision allowing punitive damages for maintenance-and-cure claims, explaining that those claims have a different legal origin. The court also relied on the rule that damages should be treated uniformly for the same injury under the Jones Act and general maritime law, and on Ninth Circuit authority describing punitive damages as non-pecuniary damages unavailable under the Jones Act.

Disposition

The court granted Foster Wheeler’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Armstrong may reassert punitive damages against Foster Wheeler if he can allege that his exposure to Foster Wheeler’s products occurred in a land-based setting and that his allegations about exposure aboard launched vessels relate only to other defendants. Any amended complaint was due by August 11, 2025. If Armstrong did not amend by that date, the case would proceed on the original complaint.