b'LEGAL MATTERSLEGAL MATTERS Supreme Court to AddressMaritime Choice of Law QuestionSTEVEN E. BERS, ESQ. // PVA GENERAL COUNSELO n March 6, the Supreme Court agreedAchoice-of-lawprovisionappearinginaA passenger vessel to hear an admiralty case which maycontract, maritime or otherwise, identifies the have ultimate impact upon PVA vesselstate whose laws will apply in the event of anowner can assure that operators who have a choice-of-law provisionoccurrence arising out of the contract. It is a intheircruiseorticketingdocuments.Thecommon clause found in many agreements inthe law applied to a Supreme Court accepted cert to answer thewhich the parties involved in the agreement aresituation will be thatfollowing question: engaged in activities in different states. Often overlookedincontractboilerplate,theseareof their home stateWhether,underfederaladmiraltylaw,ausually found somewhere near the concludingchoice-of-law clause in a maritime contractparagraphs of many contracts.can be rendered unenforceable if enforce-ment is contrary to the strong public pol- Admiralty cases before the Supreme Court areonly temporarily out of the water. Tickets for icy of the state whose law is displaced. infrequent. The Great Lakes case speaks to ad- conveyance or charters by PVA members are miralty law contracting only. Admiralty con- generally covered by admiralty law.Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreattracts can include contracts addressing subjectRealty Co., LLC .matters relating to vessels once in the water orAs relevant to PVA vessel operators, the PVA issueariseswherepassengervesselstravel between different states, or when passengers purchaseticketsandthenreturntotheir homestate,sometimesfilingclaimsifthey were injured on the boat in their home state. It has long been my recommendation that vessel owners include a choice-of-law provision in all cruise contracts and passenger tickets. In this way, a passenger vessel owner can assure that the law applied to a situation will be that of their home state for which they may be more familiar, if that law is advantageous to the un-known laws of other states.The Supreme Courts decision to accept the choice of law question arose from a contract of insurance stating New Yorks law would be the applicable law. The claim, however, was brought by individuals Pennsylvania claiming that the New York law should not be applied if it is found to be against the public policyof Pennsylvania.While it is months from now before the issue will be resolved by the Supreme Court, PVA members should be aware of the issue from twosides.Ifpurchasinginsuranceorother goods based on admiralty-qualifying contracts from other states, the decision may impact the enforceability of choice of law provisions in those contractsthe obligation to apply an-other states laws. As the provider of passenger services, the decision may test the enforceabil-ity to have claims heard under the laws of the (360) 457-5752sales@brixmarine.com companys home state.FOGHORN 26'