Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
David Cox was employed by the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard from 1974 to 1987. In August 2022, he was diagnosed with lung cancer and died less than two weeks later. His widow and the administratrix of his estate Jean C. Cox (plaintiff) brought a wrongful death and survival action under 28 U.S.C. §1333 which governs admiralty, maritime and prize cases. She brought claims for strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and negligent misrepresentation. Defendant John Crane Inc. (defendant) filed a motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s damages expert, Royal A. Bunin, MBA.
Bunin’s expert opinion included the economic damages arising from Cox’s death, including retirement income, household services, and medical expenses. Crane argued Bunin’s opinion did not fit the case because he determined his calculations in accordance with Pennsylvania law. Crane took issue with his conclusion and argued the case was governed by general maritime law (maritime common law), which has different rules for damages.
The District Court recognized that plaintiff brought this action under general maritime law. It also noted there was undisputed evidence that Mr. Cox was a maritime worker, however, plaintiff never claimed her late husband to be a seaman as well. The District Court stated, “The Supreme Court has made it clear that a maritime worker and a seaman are not necessarily synonymous.” As such, “It would be mere speculation, based on the present record, to find that Cox, while a maritime worker, was a seaman when he was exposed to asbestos products of John Crane.”
However, in conclusion, the District Court ruled, “Our Court of Appeals…has made it clear…that state remedies are available in general maritime actions involving non-seamen.” It also noted Crane never cited any statute related to damages under maritime jurisdiction that would preclude Bunin’s testimony. Accordingly, it rejected Crane’s contention that Bunin’s testimony and calculations were erroneously determined under Pennsylvania law. The District Court found that Bunin’s testimony fit the action and further found Crane’s challenges to his reliability and methodology unpersuasive. In doing so it denied Crane’s motion to preclude plaintiff’s expert witness Royal A. Bunin, MBA.