Jurisdiction: Third District Court of Appeal, Florida
Case No.: 3D24-762
Lower Tribunal Case No.: 23-11741-CA-01
Date: July 2, 2025
Lower Court: Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Judge Jose M. Rodriguez
When Punitive Damages Cross the Line — Or Don’t
In maritime law, few issues trigger as much scrutiny as punitive damages, especially when they stem from a seaman’s claim for maintenance and cure. The case of Marshall Milton Corp. v. Petit-Homme is a sharp reminder that these damages require more than just disagreement or delay — they demand demonstrable misconduct.
Marc Andre Petit-Homme, a seaman injured while employed aboard a vessel owned by Marshall Milton Corporation (MMC), brought suit after MMC terminated his maintenance and cure benefits. He sought to amend his complaint to include punitive damages, alleging that MMC acted with willful, callous disregard for his condition and rights. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision to allow that amendment — and with good reason.
What Happened?
Petit-Homme injured his hand on March 19, 2022, while working on MMC’s vessel. He underwent partial amputation of his index finger in the Bahamas and was provided housing, food, medical care, and pay during his recovery. After a period of recuperation, Petit-Homme left the ship voluntarily and continued to receive full pay and rent support from MMC.
Later, MMC turned his care over to Omega Marine Claims, a third-party adjuster. Though Petit-Homme was evaluated and reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) for one of his fingers, there was a dispute about whether his index finger had been properly assessed. Petit-Homme also declined to sign some paperwork regarding payroll changes and ultimately quit, stating via text that “the ocean just isn’t for me anymore.”
After quitting, MMC ceased his pay and rent support. He later declined a $175,000 settlement offer. He then sued MMC and requested to add a claim for punitive damages based on alleged wrongful termination of benefits and lax investigation.
The Legal Core
Under maritime law, punitive damages for failure to provide maintenance and cure are only appropriate when the employer’s actions are “willful, callous, and egregious.” The trial court allowed Petit-Homme to amend his complaint without making the required findings or applying the stricter legal standard outlined in section 768.72 of Florida Statutes.
The Third District Court of Appeal found three significant issues:
- No Proof of Retaliation or Wrongful Termination
The evidence showed Petit-Homme quit voluntarily. His claim that MMC ended his benefits because he retained a lawyer or refused a settlement was not supported by the timeline — the benefits ended before the settlement offer was made. - No Lax Investigation
The treating physician did not evaluate the index finger because Petit-Homme never asked him to. Further, the physician testified the injury was “remarkably benign” and likely wouldn’t have altered the MMI status. The court noted that relying on a treating physician’s medical judgment negates claims of reckless or malicious behavior by the employer. - No Basis for Punitive Damages
The appellate court emphasized that the trial court didn’t act as a gatekeeper. By failing to require a reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages, it allowed a serious allegation to proceed without proper support.
Why This Matters
Employers have a duty to provide maintenance and cure, but they also have the right to rely on medical evaluations and employee conduct when making decisions. Punitive damages aren’t meant to penalize reasonable mistakes — they are reserved for conduct that crosses a moral and legal line.
This case serves as a benchmark for maritime employers and employees alike. Clear communication, thorough documentation, and adherence to medical guidance are all crucial in protecting rights — and avoiding unnecessary litigation.
Today’s Insight
“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”
— Oscar Wilde