The Genesis case serves as a reminder to shipowners of the “reasonable possibility” standard. If written notice of a claim reveals a “reasonable possibility” that the claimed damages may exceed the value of the vessel and her pending freight, the shipowner has six months to file a limitation action in federal court if it chooses to do so.
On September 23, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit set aside the key provision of the Federal Maritime Commission’s Final Rule on Demurrage and Detention Billing Requirements, 46 C.F.R. § 541.4, which allowed invoices for demurrage and detention to be issued only to contracting shippers and consignees. World Shipping Council v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 152 F.4th 215 (D.C. Cir. 2025). Why did the Court find this rule arbitrary and capricious? Who may now be charged for demurrage and detention? These questions are explored in this article.
On October 7, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Shell’s certiorari petition to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision, which held that a contract to inspect and repair lifeboats on an oil platform located on the Outer Continental Shelf is a maritime contract. Earnest v. Palfinger Marine USA, Inc., 90 F.4th 804 (5th Cir. 2024).
The choice of applicable law and the choice of forum—these are two key strategic determinations that must be made in almost all legal matters. Maritime cases are not an exception. In the case decided by the Seventh Circuit on August 6, 2024, the plaintiffs relied on both federal and state law to make their cases as advantageous as possible and requested a jury trial in federal court. See In re Lion Air Flight JT 610 Crash, 110 F.4th 1007 (7th Cir. 2024). How did the court respond to these requests? Read on for more details.
The District of Columbia Circuit vacated the district court’s decision to enforce a foreign arbitral award because the respondent, against whom the petitioner sought to enforce the arbitral award, challenged the authority of the petitioner’s attorneys. Does this result align with the traditionally narrow scope of enforcement proceedings under the New York Convention? Should the district court resolve the authority dispute despite the parties’ contractual commitment to resolve such corporate governance issues through arbitration? Is it proper to allow one party to challenge the other party’s authority during enforcement proceedings, even though this party had opportunity—and was even invited—to raise this issue during arbitration? These questions remain unresolved.
Does your company make public statements that it cares about, and is working meaningfully toward, environmental sustainability? If yes, this article is for you. The opinion released by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on August 29, 2024, demonstrates that even aspirational statements, such as the company’s statement on its website that it aims “to achieve positive change in the world and build a more sustainable future for our communities and our planet,” can be actionable under consumer protection laws for being false and misleading representations. Earth Island Inst. v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 22-CV-0895, 2024 WL 3976560 (D.C. Aug. 29, 2024).
Under the jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), federal courts are granted “exclusive” jurisdiction over maritime claims. At the same time, the saving to suitors clause preserves the concurrent jurisdiction of state and federal courts. How to reconcile this conflict? Are there any other conflicts related to the saving to suitors clause? These questions are explored in this article.
This is the July 2024 edition of Maritime Law Digest, a monthly review of the most significant maritime cases decided primarily by the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeals, and state supreme courts.
Subscribe to our blog to get regular updates in the fields of maritime law, international trade law, and commercial arbitration.