SCOTUS: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC

Issue before or regarding the Supreme Court of The United States

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a community supported watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.

Register a free account to join the discussions. When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including access to market data/charts and additional members only rooms (including one for trade/barter with the community).

searcher

morning
Moderator
Benefactor
Messages
45,421
Reaction score
7,678
Points
288
Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC

In the world of marine insurance, reliability and predictability are a top priority. Marine insurers must safeguard their own financial stability, while protecting against unique maritime risks for their policyholders. To serve the goals of reliability and predictability, many marine insurance policies include “choice-of-law” clauses. A choice of law clause specifies which laws will apply if there is a dispute involving the policy. If there is a dispute, the insurer and policyholder know which laws apply, allowing both parties to reasonably predict the outcome of any potential disputes.

For example, a number of marine insurance policies point to New York law as the choice-of-law in marine insurance policies. New York law is a common choice among marine insurers because New York is a populous state with a robust economy, including a significant maritime industry. New York’s laws are well-established and reliable in the context of maritime contracts and disputes, and New York’s maritime jurisprudence is generally more developed than that of other states.

More:

 
Holding: Choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, with narrow exceptions not applicable in this case.

Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh on February 21, 2024. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

 
Back
Top Bottom