With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and in others, speak with one voice in concluding that punitive damages are non-pecuniary and, therefore, are not recoverable under Miles's interpretation of the Jones Act.”) 30 . See, e.g., Lobegeiger v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., No. 11-21620-CIV, 2011 WL 3703329, at *6-7 (S.D.Fla. Aug. 23, 2011), and Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.., No. 11-23323-CIV, 2012 WL 920675, at *3-4 (S.D.Fla. Mar. 19, 2012) (finding that In re Amtrak Sunset Ltd. Train Crash in Bayou Canot, Al., 121 F.3d 1421, 1429 (11th Cir.1997), which held personal injury plaintiffs were not entitled to pursue "such non-pecuniary [punitive] damages” under the general maritime law, was no longer good law). See, also, Barrette v. Jubilee Fisheries, Inc., No. C10-01206 MJP, 2011 WL 3516061, at *6-7 (W.D.Wa. Aug. 11, 2011) (<HOLDING>); In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater

A: holding that absent an actionable injury to one spouse the other spouse cannot recover for loss of consortium
B: holding that wifes recovery for loss of consortium should not be reduced by the proportion of negligence attributable to husband because claim for loss of consortium is independent of the damages claim of the injured spouse
C: holding spouse of injured seaman entitled to recover loss of consortium arising out of unseaworthiness cause of action contrary to smith v trinidad corp 992 f2d 996 9th cir1993 per curiam
D: recognizing cause of action for loss of consortium
C.