Lawsuit accuses cruise ship of not treating virus-infected couple

Operators of the Coral Princess cruise ship, whose March voyage to South America was cut short after an outbreak of COVID-19 are accused in a lawsuit of withholding medical care from a couple infected with the virus.

Unlike similar cases filed against Princess Cruise Lines LTD, the plaintiffs in this case blame the operators for referring to the illness as influenza and refusing to give medical attention to Peter and Grace Nahm of New York. The Nahms say they became infected with the virus aboard the Coral, which set sail March 5 from San Antonio, Chile. Two other cruise ships, the Diamond and the Grand also experienced virus outbreaks. The Grand boarded new passengers on Feb. 21 and sailed for Hawaii from San Francisco.

"Carnival and Princess and their agents continued to exhibit and/or engage in extreme outrageous conduct when plaintiffs were forced to suffer as they both became ill with COVID-19 and their conditions continued to deteriorate, made worse when defendants' nurse from the Coral Princess medical center threatened to withhold any further medical treatment for Mr. Nahm and Mrs. Nahm when the Nahms objected to being separated after being ill and quarantining together for days," wrote partner Nanci E. Nishimura of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP and P. Terry Anderlini of Anderlini & McSweeney LLP. Peter and Grace Nahm v. Carnival Corp., Princess Cruise Lines, 2:20CV09777 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 23, 2020)

The Nahms planned the cruise for 62 friends, 48 from South Korea and 14 from the United States. Two weeks before the Coral's departure, the ship notified passengers with South Korean passports that they wouldn't be allowed on the ship due to COVID-19-related travel bans issued by the South Korean government. The others were allowed to board. The ship operators, however, failed to implement safety measures to stop the virus spread, nor did they change how passengers were boarding and leaving the vessel, the lawsuit states.

"Princess Cruises has been sensitive to the difficulties the COVID-19 outbreak has caused to our guests and crew. 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," said Negin Kamali, a Princess spokesperson. "We do not comment on any pending litigation."

Carnival is now under investigation by Congress to see if it violated a federal law that requires ships approaching the U.S. reports to flag outbreaks. The Coral's medical center staff told passengers there were higher than normal rates for people showing flu-like symptoms, the complaint said. By then, seven passengers and five crew members were infected.

"The carefully crafted message omitted the most salient fact, that defendants as of that time had no capability to assess the presence of coronavirus and were therefore flying blind," the lawsuit said.

The company didn't warn passengers aboard the Coral until three weeks after boarding. The ship disembarked March 19 at Buenos Aires but passengers were trapped as the Argentine government required them to remain at port indefinitely. Eventually the Coral left Buenos Aires to return to its home port in Florida after multiple unsuccessful stops in Uruguay, Brazil and Barbados. The ship began issuing status updates for the Coral as it previously did for the Diamond and the Grand Princess cruises.

"The communications by Princess regarding the fate of the Coral Princess were meant to advise passengers and the public regarding its location, but were also carefully calibrated pretext designed to limit the scope of defendants' ultimate liability," the lawsuit states. "During the first 19 days of what had originally been scheduled as a 14-day cruise, Princess in consultation with and with the full authorization of Carnival in its official updates regarding the Coral Princess did not once mention the words 'virus,' 'pandemic' or 'COVID-19.'"

The Nahms became infected, were told it was the flu, were given medication and sent back to their rooms. Later, the couple were given nasal swabs but not told why, the lawsuit states. The couple reached out to their son, Paul in New Jersey, who sought help from Coral's medical staff via social media. The ship told Paul his father was seen by a nurse and that a doctor spoke to him, "but nothing could be further from the truth," the lawsuit states. "The Nahms were both sick and distressed with fever, cough, diarrhea and vomiting in their staterooms."

The couple were then denied more medical attention when they refused to be split up when the ship tried to relocate one of them closer to the medical center, the complaint states. It wasn't until Grace called to report her husband was extremely ill that they began giving him medical care, the lawsuit said.

The Nahms were hospitalized separately in Miami.

"The Nahms and their son in the States had to resort to social media with pleas for help. For Mr. Nahm, a long-planned 14-day heavenly cruise became 72 days of hell before he returned home," said Nishimura. The industry makes money by ticket sales and onboard purchases, which creates a financial incentive for the defendants to allow passengers on board with the virus outbreak, she said.

"The passengers and crew were captives on a cruise ship of coronavirus pandemonium for profit," Nishimura said.

Princess faces hundreds of clams from passengers aboard each of their vessels that experienced virus outbreaks in February and March but continued with voyages. Princess has so far won the majority of its initial rounds of dismissals, after federal judges found passengers couldn't seek damages if they only allege a fear of being infected, and that passengers must prove a direct causation between Princess' actions and their infections.

Last week, Judge R. Gary Klausner of the Central District of California who has tossed out several Princess lawsuits, refused to certify the first putative class action proposed by Grand Princess passengers represented by attorneys from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Nelson & Fraenkel LLP and Mary Alexander. The passengers entered into a passage contract when the cruise was booked, which includes a waiver of class action, Klausner ruled. The passengers argued the waiver was unenforceable and the contract was buried in the booking confirmations. Archer et al v. Carnival Corp., et al., 3:20-CV-02381 (C.D. Cal., filed April 8, 2020)

The notice was reasonably communicated with customers, and the passengers could have read the contract thoroughly, Klausner said. Nor did the passengers present evidence the cruise ship took away their chance to review the contract prior to, during or after the cruise, the judge said.

U.S. judge Christina A. Snyder of the Central District is presiding over the Nahm action.