The Princess Cruises ship Grand Princess is seen in San Francisco Bay off Hunter's Point from Alameda, Calif., on Thursday, March 19, 2020. (AP Photo/Ben Margot)

Allowing cruise ship passengers to sue over emotional distress because they could have been exposed to the COVID-19 pandemic would "open the door to open-ended liability," according to Princess Cruise Line Ltd. in a court filing this week.

The motion to dismiss, filed Tuesday in 13 cases brought on behalf of more than 40 passengers, is the first substantive response that Princess Cruises has filed in court since the coronavirus prompted the filing of dozens of lawsuits. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Metro-North Commuter R. Co. v. Buckley, Princess Cruises says that case law prohibits the plaintiffs, none of whom contracted COVID-19, from suing for fear of exposure to the coronavirus.

Such an "unprecedented theory of liability for emotional distress" could unleash lawsuits against all types of businesses, wrote Jeffrey Maltzman, of Maltzman & Partners in Coral Gables, Florida, who represents Princess Cruises.

"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," he wrote. "If individuals in plaintiffs' situation can recover, businesses, school, churches and other venues across America will be forced to keep their doors closed long after state stay-at-home orders are lifted, lest they risk crushing liability to each and every one of their invitees for emotional distress, based on the mere possibility of infection, because some employee or other current or past customer of the business was later discovered to have the virus."

The motion comes as businesses across the country, reopening after months of closures imposed by state and local officials to curb the spread of COVID-19, have lobbied for protections from liability.

Both Maltzman and plaintiffs' attorney Debi Chalik, of Chalik & Chalik in Plantation, who filed the 13 cases, declined to comment.

In a statement, Princess Cruises said it did not comment on litigation.

Princess Cruises faces a host of lawsuits over COVID-19 exposure on several of its cruise ships, including the Grand Princess, quarantined in March off the coast of California. The plaintiffs in the 13 lawsuits subject to this week's dismissal motion had traveled on that Hawaiian voyage, after which 21 passengers and crew tested positive for the coronavirus and two died.

In addition to the lawsuits for emotional distress, Princess Cruises faces wrongful death claims on behalf of passengers who died from COVID-19 and at least one class action on behalf of more than 2,000 passengers on the Grand Princess. On Tuesday, lawyers filed an amended class action, originally brought by nine passengers, that now has 60 named plaintiffs. A shareholder also filed a class action against Carnival Corp., the parent company of Princess Cruises, last month.

In Tuesday's motion, Princess Cruises relied on the Metro-North decision, which found that the plaintiff could not sue for emotional distress from potential exposure to a disease unless or until he or she "manifests symptoms of a disease."

"The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed this rule precisely to avoid the oppressive societal costs that would occur if claims like plaintiffs' could go forward," Maltzman wrote. "Mere anxiety or fear about their health, as is alleged by plaintiffs, is legally insufficient to support a claim for emotional distress in a fear of illness case."