Skip to content
M The Maritime LawNews, analysis, and commentary on admiralty and maritime law
  • Home
  • All Topics
  • Digest
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Home
  • All Topics
    • Administrative Procedure Act
    • Jurisdiction
    • Admiralty and Maritime Law Fundamentals
    • Limitation of Liability
    • Carriage of Goods by Water
    • Maritime Contracts
    • Charterparties
    • Personal Injury and Wrongful Death
    • Demurrage and Detention
    • Sanctions
    • Federal Maritime Commission
    • Saving to Suitors Clause
    • Impracticability of Performance
    • Seizure and Forfeiture of Vessels
  • Digest
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Home
  • All Topics
  • Digest
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
Subscribe

All topics

Topics within admiralty and maritime law.

Administrative Procedure Act2 articlesAdmiralty and Maritime Law Fundamentals1 articleCarriage of Goods by Water2 articlesCharterparties1 articleDemurrage and Detention1 articleFederal Maritime Commission2 articlesImpracticability of Performance1 articleJurisdiction2 articlesLimitation of Liability1 articleMaritime Contracts1 articlePersonal Injury and Wrongful Death1 articleSanctions1 articleSaving to Suitors Clause1 articleSeizure and Forfeiture of Vessels1 article

On Instagram · @themaritimelawblog

Follow
Top 10 maritime cases from July–August 2026 Over Top 10 maritime cases from July–August 2026

Over these two months, judges handed down rulings touching on some of the most closely watched maritime events and questions:

⚓ Which claims by the City and County of Baltimore and local businesses can proceed in the limitation litigation arising from the M/V 𝘋𝘢𝘭𝘪’s allision with the Francis Scott Key Bridge?
⚓ Can the M/V 𝘋𝘢𝘭𝘪’s owner and manager sue the vessel’s South Korean shipbuilder in Pennsylvania?
⚓ Does the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 shield a small workboat?
⚓ Are a barge’s earnings from stationary work count as “pending freight” and therefore must be added to the limitation fund?
⚓ Can the salvor of the 𝘛𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘤 auction off the wreck’s artifacts?

The ten most notable cases are gathered in the slides below.

Are there any notable maritime rulings from your jurisdiction to add to the list?
In 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦, 𝘐𝘯𝘤. 𝘷. 𝘓𝘰𝘶𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘢 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 In 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦, 𝘐𝘯𝘤. 𝘷. 𝘓𝘰𝘶𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘢 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦, 𝘓.𝘓.𝘊., No. 25-30331 (5th Cir. June 11, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a significant decision for vessel owners who charter their vessels to third parties.

One of the risks such owners face is that a charterer may procure necessaries for the vessel from a third-party supplier, fail to pay for them, and enter bankruptcy. In such circumstances, the supplier of necessaries may seek to enforce a maritime lien against the vessel itself, notwithstanding the fact that the vessel owner neither contracted with the supplier nor assumed any personal liability for the debt.

Would a no-lien clause in the charterparty shield the vessel owner from that risk?

Work Cat Trans Gulf LLC (“Work Cat”), a container-on-barge service provider, chartered two barges from Trailer Bridge, Inc. The charter included a no-lien clause requiring Work Cat to indemnify and hold Trailer Bridge harmless against any maritime liens arising on the barges.

To tow the barges, Work Cat also chartered two tugboats from Louisiana International Marine (“LIM”). Work Cat later failed to pay several of LIM’s invoices and subsequently entered bankruptcy.

LIM asserted maritime liens over the barges and demanded payment from Trailer Bridge, the owner of the barges, for Work Cat’s unpaid debts. Trailer Bridge refused and sought a declaratory judgment that the barges were not subject to LIM’s maritime liens, relying on the no-lien clause in its contract with Work Cat.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that LIM had valid maritime liens under the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act (CIMLA). Under CIMLA, a party may obtain a maritime lien if it provides necessaries to a vessel on the order of the owner or a person authorized by the owner. The Court held that LIM satisfied these requirements by providing towage services (qualifying as “necessaries”) to the vessels on the order of Work Cat’s agents, who, as officers or agents appointed by a charterer, were statutorily presumed to have authority to procure such services.
⚡ The submersible Titan was unregistered, unclasse ⚡ The submersible Titan was unregistered, unclassed, and did not undergo regulatory inspections in Canada, the United States, or the Bahamas, where it operated.

This is one of the findings in the Transportation Safety Board of Canada’s investigation report, released on June 17, 2026.

On June 18, 2023, the submersible Titan, owned by a U.S. corporation OceanGate, Inc., began a dive to the wreck of the Titanic. The expedition departed from St. John’s, Canada. The Titan was supported by the Canadian cargo vessel Polar Prince, which towed it to the dive location and served as the base for OceanGate’s operations, including communication with and tracking of the submersible.

About 1 hour and 45 minutes into the descent, the surface support team lost communication with the submersible. Four days later, the U.S. Coast Guard confirmed that the wreckage of the Titan had been found on the ocean floor near the Titanic. All five people on board lost their lives.

The investigation report released by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada highlights critical safety issues. It states that using carbon fibre for the Titan’s pressure hull had no precedent in the industry. It also found that the hull failed progressively, with damage accumulating during each dive cycle until the submersible imploded.

Another key finding concerns the lack of regulatory oversight. The Titan was unregistered, unclassed, and did not undergo regulatory inspections in Canada, the United States, or the Bahamas, where it operated.

How could that happen?

Internationally, there are two primary ways for submersibles to be subject to oversight: (1) obtaining classification from a classification society, and (2) registering with a flag state that provides regulatory oversight. Both methods rely largely on the owner or operator taking the initiative. In many countries, classification is not mandatory for submersibles, and only a few countries have domestic regulatory oversight for submersibles and processes to verify if submersibles are registered.

OceanGate completed neither process for the Titan.

The link to the report is in the comments.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit r The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently issued an important decision in one of the most closely watched sanctions-related forfeiture cases.

In 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘷. 𝘒𝘩𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘷, No. 25-869-CV, 2026 WL 1532043 (2d Cir. June 1, 2026), the Second Circuit addressed whether the titleholder of the luxury yacht 𝘈𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘢, seized in Fiji at the request of the United States, had standing to contest its forfeiture.

The U.S. Government filed a civil forfeiture action, alleging that the yacht was beneficially owned by Suleiman Kerimov, a sanctioned Russian individual. The Government’s forfeiture theory was not based solely on the yacht’s alleged ownership by a sanctioned person. Rather, it contended that the vessel was subject to forfeiture because it had been maintained, operated, and provisioned through transactions conducted by or on behalf of a sanctioned individual and routed through the U.S. financial system in violation of U.S. sanctions laws.

After the forfeiture action was filed, Eduard Khudainatov and his company, which held legal title to the vessel, asserted claims to the 𝘈𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘢, arguing that Khudainatov—not Kerimov—was the yacht’s true beneficial owner. The Government moved to strike the claims for lack of standing, and both the district court and the Second Circuit agreed.

The Second Circuit held that a claimant who possesses only bare legal title to a seized vessel, without a “facially colorable interest” in it, lacks standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to challenge the vessel’s civil forfeiture.

Here is a breakdown of the case, and you can read the full analysis at www.themaritimelawblog.com.
After the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark o After the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in 𝘏𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘢 𝘋𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘱. 𝘷. 𝘙𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘳𝘶𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘓𝘵𝘥., No. 24-983, 2026 WL 1423365 (U.S. May 21, 2026), some media headlines appeared to suggest that four cruise lines were held “liable for using a confiscated port in Havana.”

This statement is not entirely accurate.

Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, found that four cruise lines—Royal Caribbean Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Carnival Corporation, and MSC Cruises—“trafficked” in the Port of Havana, over which a U.S. corporation, Havana Docks, held a time-limited concession and to which it owns the claim certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, by transporting nearly one million paying passengers to Cuba between 2016 and 2019 without the authorization of Havana Docks.

While this was sufficient to establish the elements of a claim under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, it does not mean that the cruise lines were held liable.

The Court did not address potential statutory exceptions to liability, including the exception for “transactions and uses of property incident to lawful travel to Cuba, to the extent that such transactions and uses of property are necessary to the conduct of such travel,” 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(B)(iii).

Those issues were not before the Court.

Whether the cruise lines will ultimately be held liable will be determined on remand.

With that said, the decision has significant implications for U.S. businesses whose operations involved property confiscated by the Cuban Government. It is not necessary that the claimant ever held ownership of the property; a time-limited interest may also suffice. According to Justice Thomas, the use of property “tainted by a past confiscation” may give rise to a claim by any U.S. national “who had any interest in the tainted property” and “owns the claim” to that property.
On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that has important implications for transportation brokers and plaintiffs in motor vehicle collision cases. In 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘨𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘷. 𝘊𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘐𝘐, 𝘓𝘓𝘊, No. 24-1238 (U.S. May 14, 2026), the Court held that transportation brokers may be subject to state-law tort claims for negligently selecting trucking companies.
M The Maritime LawNews, analysis, and commentary on admiralty and maritime law
Navigate
  • Home
  • All Topics
  • Digest
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
Newsletter
Subscribe
The content of this website is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek advice from a lawyer qualified in a relevant jurisdiction regarding their specific circumstances.
Terms of Use·Privacy Policy