GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE V. RAIDERS RETREAT REALTY CO., LLC
The Court will consider whether, under federal admiralty law, a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract can be rendered unenforceable if enforcement is contrary to the “strong public policy” of the state whose law is displaced. The Third Circuit held that The Bremen’s framework for determining whether a forum selection clause is enforceable should be extended to choice-of-law clauses.
Over the past six years, I have spent a lot of time thinking about choice-of-law clauses. I have written about how to interpret them, about their extraterritorial effect, about their history, and about why insurance companies frequently omit them from their policies. If a pub were ever to host a trivia night devoted to choice-of-law…Continue Reading
In the 1994 film, Clerks, the main character works at a quick-stop grocery store in New Jersey. On his day off, he gets a call from his boss asking him to cover the shift of another employee. As he grapples with a stream of difficult customers during the course of this unexpected shift, he keeps…Continue Reading
In a prior post, I surveyed the facts, procedural history, and potential significance of Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, an upcoming Supreme Court case about the enforceability of choice-of-law clauses in maritime insurance contracts. In a subsequent post, I shared some thoughts about the brief filed by the petitioner, Great Lakes Insurance SE (GLI). In this…Continue Reading