By Joyce Hanson

Law360 (June 3, 2020, 7:13 PM EDT ) Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. has asked a California federal judge to dismiss two lawsuits claiming it put customers in danger of contracting COVID-19, saying the passengers filing suit can't prove they were in danger of getting the virus when they voyaged aboard the Grand Princess.

The cruise line, a Carnival Corp. subsidiary, told U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner in motions to dismiss Tuesday that the passengers are lodging "an unprecedented theory of liability" for emotional distress that the U.S. Supreme Court had previously warned against in a 1997 case. Formerly quarantined plaintiffs Ronald and Eva Weissberger in one suit and Michael and Wyonnie Austin and Kenneth and Lucille Nickens in the other never sustained actual physical harm and can't show they suffered coronavirus symptoms, the cruise line said.

"If accepted, plaintiffs' theory would open the door to open-ended liability for every business, school, church and municipality across America, stalling economic recovery in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and complicating the ability of businesses to reopen," Princess said in both of its dismiss motions.

In 1997, the Supreme Court held in Metro-North Commuter R. Co. v. Buckley that a plaintiff can't recover for emotional distress stemming from potential exposure to a disease "unless, and until, he manifests symptoms of a disease," Princess argued.

The six plaintiffs are among approximately 100 passengers who have filed nearly identical suits against Princess, each seeking $1 million in compensatory damages for emotional distress after they stepped aboard the Grand Princess vessel on Feb. 21, according to Princess.

But simply because the plaintiffs had embarked on the same giant cruise ship along with about 3,700 other passengers and crew — some of whom may have interacted with individuals from the Grand Princess' preceding cruise who were later diagnosed with COVID-19 — that doesn't mean they were at actual risk of immediate physical injury, the cruise line said.

"While evidence will ultimately show that plaintiffs' factual allegations against Princess are inaccurate and misleading, even accepting plaintiffs' allegations as true for the purposes of considering this motion to dismiss, the complaints make clear that plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law," according to Princess in both of its bids to throw out the two suits.

The Weissbergers, a South Florida couple who were quarantined on the Grand Princess off the coast of California before being moved to continue their quarantine at the Travis Air Force Base near San Francisco, sued the cruise company on March 9 for allegedly failing to take precautions to prevent a coronavirus outbreak on the ship after two passengers on the previous journey disembarked with symptoms.

Princess then got hit with the Austins' and Nickenses' suit on March 17, when the formerly quarantined couples, who were also passengers aboard the Feb. 21 voyage that departed out of San Francisco, sought damages of at least $1 million. Their suit alleges that the cruise line negligently exposed them to the risk of getting sick aboard a ship infected with the easily contagious and sometimes deadly coronavirus.

"In continuing to sail with another 3,000 passengers including plaintiffs on Feb. 21, knowing that some of those passengers and crew had already been exposed to COVID-19, the defendant Princess has exposed plaintiffs to actual risk of immediate physical injury," the couples claimed.

On March 12, Princess said it was voluntarily pausing global operations of its 18 cruise ships for 60 days. As of June 1, according to a company notice, Princess has decided to "temporarily pause" its global ship operations, with all September and October cruises scheduled to depart out of San Francisco canceled.

The Weissbergers' daughter, Florida personal injury lawyer Debi F. Chalik of Chalik & Chalik PA, told Law360 on March 17 that anger motivated her to file suit on behalf of her 74-year-old father and 69-year-old mother, whose age and health put them at higher risk of experiencing extreme symptoms, if not death, because of the virus.

Princess Cruise Lines argued in its motions to dismiss Tuesday that the plaintiffs say their cases involve a maritime tort, but their claims brought under federal maritime jurisdiction should be dismissed under well-established principles that govern emotional distress claims.

"Rejection of plaintiffs' unprecedented theory is all the more important in the maritime context. A fundamental interest of federal maritime jurisdiction is the protection of maritime commerce," Princess said, citing a 2019 Supreme Court decision in The Dutra Grp. v. Batterton . "Allowing unpredictable and potentially crushing liability for ocean carriers to potentially all of their passengers in the wake of a pandemic would so seriously inhibit maritime commerce that, even if Metro-North did not squarely forbid liability by its terms, principles of maritime law would independently require dismissal."

A Princess Cruise Lines spokesperson told Law360 late Wednesday in an email that the company does not comment on any pending litigation.

"Princess Cruises has been sensitive to the difficulties the COVID-19 outbreak has caused to our guests and crew," the spokesperson added. "Our response throughout this process has focused on the well-being of our guests and crew within the parameters dictated to us by the government agencies involved and the evolving medical understanding of this new illness."

Counsel for the Weissbergers, Austins and Nickenses declined to comment Wednesday.

Princess is represented by Jeffrey B. Maltzman, Edgar R. Nield, Gabrielle De Santis Nield and Rafaela P. Castells of Maltzman & Partners PA.

Ronald and Eva Weissberger, Michael and Wyonnie Austin and Kenneth and Lucille Nickens are represented by Michael A. Simmrin of the Simmrin Law Group and Debi F. Chalik of Chalik and Chalik PA.

The cases are Ronald and Eva Weissberger v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd., case number 2:20-cv-02267, and Michael Austin et al. v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd., case number 2:20-cv-02531, both in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

--Additional reporting by Carolina Bolado. Editing by Steven Edelstone.

Update: This article has been updated with a comment from Princess Cruise Lines.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.