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).
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.
When the Ever Given, a large container ship, became lodged in the Suez Canal in March 2021, it blocked one the world’s busiest maritime routes for several days. This incident led to a significant disruption in global trade, as hundreds of ships were delayed or forced to reroute around the southern tip of Africa instead of passing through the canal. Rerouting around the southern tip of Africa, known as the Cape of Good Hope route, can add approximately 7 to 10 days to a ship’s journey. This longer route increases fuel consumption and operational costs. Can the carrier recover the increased shipping costs from the charterer? This question is analyzed in this article.