In September 2026, courts dealt with situations that the maritime industry and its lawyers know all too well, such as cargo lost, damaged, or never delivered, or a cruise passenger injured on board and suing the cruise line. But before a court can decide who is liable, it must first resolve any dispute over threshold questions, such as which law applies and where the case must be heard. When COGSA meets a paramount clause pointing to Turkish law, which one governs? Will a U.S. court enforce a cruise ticket’s forum-selection clause that sends a passenger’s claim to a foreign court? What happens to a claim when the claimant has not followed a contractual claims procedure? Read on to find out how the courts answered these questions and what else happened in admiralty and maritime law this month.
This summer season has been remarkably productive for the courts: they have handed down rulings in some of the most noteworthy maritime cases, including those arising from the M/V Dali’s allision with the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, and the planned auction of artifacts recovered from the Titanic. The U.S. courts also returned to the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, raising novel questions and testing its boundaries: whether a small commercial vessel enjoys the Act’s protections, and what sums make up the limitation fund. Here are summaries of these and other maritime decisions.
June 2026 was an eventful month. The civil forfeiture of the luxury yacht Amadea, Maine’s claim of title to a historic shipwreck, maritime liens asserted over vessels by a supplier of necessaries, and a multi-jurisdiction “Banking Days” clause in a ship sale contract: these are just some of the issues courts considered. Here is a closer look at the month’s notable rulings and industry developments, and the lessons they carry.
A claimant who holds only bare legal title to a seized vessel lacks standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to contest its civil forfeiture. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reached that conclusion in United States v. The M/Y Amadea, 177 F.4th 224 (2d Cir. 2026).
May 2026 was an eventful month across the industry, headlined by the determination on the lawfulness of the M/T Heroic Idun’s detention by Equatorial Guinea, the settlement between the State of Maryland and the owner and operator of the M/V Dali following its allision with the Francis Scott Key Bridge, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against the cruise lines in the case concerning their use of property confiscated by the Cuban Government. Let’s dive in.
The World Shipping Council (WSC) challenged how the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) interpreted the “unreasonable refusal to deal or negotiate” rule in 46 U.S.C. § 41104(a)(10). The D.C. Circuit upheld the FMC’s interpretation.
Ocean carriers may need to divert from the planned route due to circumstances such as military conflict in a particular region. Diversions like this may create significant additional costs for the carrier. Can these costs be recovered from cargo interests, or must they be borne by the carrier? There is no bright-line rule. Courts have long dealt with such situations, with some cases dating back to the Suez Crisis of 1956. One such example is Transatlantic Financing Corporation v. United States, 363 F.2d 312 (D.C. Cir. 1966).
The Genesis case serves as a reminder to shipowners of the “reasonable possibility” standard. If the shipowner receives written notice indicating a "reasonable possibility" of a claim and damages exceeding the value of the vessel, the shipowner has six months to file a limitation action in federal court.
