Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co.
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co. and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co..
The Supreme Court reviewed the enforceability of choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts, specifically in a dispute between Great Lakes Insurance and Raiders Retreat Realty Co. The Court found that such provisions are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, with no applicable exceptions in this case. The decision reversed the Third Circuit's ruling, which had remanded the case to consider Pennsylvania's public policy.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co..
The Court held that choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, with narrow exceptions not applicable here.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co.. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Preemption is relevant to Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co.
The case involves the enforceability of choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts under federal maritime law, which preempts state law.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, with narrow exceptions not applicable here.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co.
The Court exercises its power to review and determine the enforceability of contractual provisions under federal maritime law.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Federal courts 'make decisional law' for maritime cases, based on sources including 'judicial opinions, legislation, treatises, and scholarly writings.'
-
Why State–Federal Power is relevant to Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co.
The case discusses the allocation of authority between state and federal law in the context of maritime contracts.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Where, as here, a uniform federal rule governs the enforceability of choice-of-law clauses in maritime contracts, no gap exists to be filled by state law.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co. that support the summary and concepts above.
Choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law.
The Third Circuit recognized the presumptive validity and enforceability of choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts.
Raiders' proposal lacks support in case law, and its application would undermine the fundamental purpose of choice-of-law clauses.
