In Shields v. United States, 662 F. Supp. 187 (M.D. Fla. 1987), the court determined that the exclusivity provision did not prevent the plaintiff from seeking punitive damages and attorney's fees from his employer, a private operator of a government vessel, which had failed to pay him maintenance and cure benefits. 662 F. Supp. at 188. To reach this conclusion, the court relied on the requirement in the exclusivity provision that a claim will be precluded against an agent only when it arises out of the same subject matter as a claim for which he has a remedy against the United States. See id. at 189. In permitting the claim against the agent operator, the Shields court reasoned that the plaintiff's claim against the vessel operator, arising from the arbitrary and willful conduct of its insurance department's handling of his maintenance and cure benefits, was "an entirely different subject matter" from the his negligence and unseaworthiness claims against the United States. Id. at 190.