Plain-English summary
Court unanimously holds maritime choice-of-law clauses presumptively enforceable under federal admiralty law
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Third Circuit, holding that choice-of-law clauses in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal admiralty law. The Court rejected a broader 'strong public policy' exception and found only narrow, established exceptions apply, which did not affect this case.
Why this matters
The decision clarifies national rules for maritime contracts by making choice-of-law clauses generally enforceable, reducing uncertainty about which law applies to disputes at sea. That predictability helps shipowners, insurers, charterers, and others who rely on consistent contract terms across state and national lines.
Who may feel it
- Shipowners and charterers
- Marine insurers and reinsurers
- Maritime service providers and contractors
- Ports and terminal operators
- Business parties to maritime contracts and their lawyers
Key questions
- What standard does federal admiralty law use to decide whether to enforce a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract?
- Can a court refuse to enforce a maritime choice-of-law clause simply because enforcement would conflict with a state’s 'strong public policy'?