Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Great Lakes Insurance SE v Raiders Retreat Realty Co. In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract unenforceable if enforcement would conflict with the “strong public policy” of the state whose law is displaced? The case was decided on February 21, 2024. The Supreme Court held that Choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, with narrow exceptions not applicable in this case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. The Constitution confers federal jurisdiction over all maritime cases to ensure uniformity across the United States, with federal courts deriving maritime law from various sources such as judicial opinions and scholarly writings. In the absence of established maritime rules, federal courts possess the authority to formulate new, uniform maritime rules. Relevant to this discussion, federal maritime law presumes the validity of choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts. The precedent set by the Wilburn Boat case, which permitted state law to address the absence of uniform federal maritime rules, does not extend to choice-of-law provisions. Therefore, contrary to Raiders’ argument, state law does not serve to fill any gaps in this context, reinforcing the federal rule's presumption of enforceability for choice-of-law clauses in maritime contracts. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion to argue that the Wilburn Boat precedent rests on flawed premises and is at odds with the fundamental precept of admiralty law. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.