Princess Cruises is arguing that if nearly 20 of the coronavirus-related lawsuits against it are allowed to move forward, nearly every institution in the US would face claims over potential exposure.
In papers filed on Tuesday, the Carnival Corp subsidiary moved to dismiss 19 of the 25 lawsuits against it stemming from the 107,500-gt Grand Princess' (built 1998) 21 February sailing from San Francisco.
Princess' lawyers argued that the Supreme Court has already ruled that plaintiffs have to develop symptoms before suing for exposure to a disease or virus.
"Thousands of schools, nursing homes, shopping centres, stadiums, parks, and businesses across America have inevitably had cases on their premises," Jeffrey Maltzman of California-based Maltzman & Partners wrote in Princess' motion to dismiss.
"If [the] plaintiff's theory of liability succeeds, then all of the millions of individuals who passed through those venues can similarly claim to have suffered emotional distress if they learn that another person who was later diagnosed with Covid-19 was present."
All the lawsuits were filed in Los Angeles federal court in March and April and all seek at least $1m each.
The plaintiffs argued that Princess was negligent in its handling of the 107,500-gt Grand Princess (built 1998) 21 February sailing from San Francisco.
They claimed the cruise line should not have allowed the Grand Princess to leave port knowing two passengers from the preceding voyage had contracted Covid-19 and died, especially with 62 passengers from that voyage continuing their trip.
Princess' behaviour, they said, was even more egregious given the company's experience with the 115,900-gt Diamond Princess (built 2004), which was held off Japan and more than 700 passengers and crew developed the illness and 13 died.
All 19 lawsuits allege emotional distress. Four say the plaintiffs tested positive for Covid-19, but Princess said they did not argue there were symptoms.
Cases 'flood' in
Princess said the Supreme Court ruled that symptoms were necessary for emotional distress cases in order to prevent a "flood" of cases related to contagion.
"With the Covid-19 pandemic, a 'flood' has already begun," Princess' attorneys wrote.
"In the first few months, 24 cases have already been filed just from this one cruiseship, with similar cases filed relating to passengers on other cruises and other vessels. There is no reason to think this flood will abate."
Debi Chalik, an attorney with Florida's Chalik and Chalik, which is representing many of the plaintiffs in the cases covered by the motion to dismiss, did not reply to a request for comment.
The remainders
The six remaining lawsuits involve slightly different arguments.
Two were filed in the Northern District of California and later transferred into the Los Angeles-based Central District of California, where the others are as Princess has a contractual venue selection clause in its passage contracts.
Both seek class action status, include the Grand Princess' registration company, Fairline Shipping, and Carnival as plaintiffs and make corporate alter ego allegations.
Two are wrongful death lawsuits, including one where Princess is accused of giving a non-responsive patient Tylenol and Tamiflu.
The final two are groups of passengers represented by Texas-based attorney Andres C Pereira and make similar negligence arguments as the Chalik-represented plaintiffs.
