Amicus Briefs
Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co. LLC
SCOTUS, No. 22-500
Issue Presented
Under federal admiralty law, can a choice of law clause in a maritime contract be rendered unenforceable if enforcement is contrary to the "strong public policy" of the state whose law is displaced?
Factual Summary
Small businesses like Raiders Retreat Realty Co. rely on their insurance policies for protection in their most vulnerable moments. When Raiders Retreat faced a significant loss, they turned to their insurer, Great Lakes Insurance SE, expecting support. Instead, they were confronted with a legal barrier embedded within the fine print of their contract—a forum-selection clause requiring them to pursue their claim in a foreign court, far removed from their local resources and support.
Though the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decided to enforce the choice of law clause in a marine insurance policy, the Third Circuit reversed that ruling, stating that choice-of-law provisions must yield to the strong public policy of the forum state.1 Raiders Retreat brought their fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that such clauses unfairly target smaller businesses, robbing them of a fair and accessible venue to seek justice in their home jurisdictions.
AAJ’s Position
AAJ filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Raiders Retreat, advocating against the enforcement of forum-selection clauses that disproportionately affect smaller businesses, and make it nearly impossible for small businesses to challenge powerful insurance companies on an equal footing. AAJ argues that forcing insured parties to litigate in distant, unfamiliar courts is a tactic that discourages legitimate claims and shelters insurers from accountability. AAJ emphasizes that no business, particularly those with limited resources, should be denied their day in court simply because of a clause designed to tip the scales in favor of one party.
Outcome: Adverse
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Third Circuit holding that parties’ choice-of-law provisions must yield to the strong public policy of the forum state in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh.2
Citations
Brief: Brief of Amicus Curiae American Association for Justice in Support of Respondent, Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co. LLC, No. 22-500 (Aug. 7, 2023).
Opinion: Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, 601 U.S. 65 (2024).
[1] Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, 521 F. Supp. 3d 580 (E.D. Pa. 2021), vacated and remanded, 47 F.4th 225 (3d Cir. 2022), rev'd, 601 U.S. 65, 144 S. Ct. 637, 217 L. Ed. 2d 401 (2024).
[2] Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, 601 U.S. 65 (2024) (emphasizing that the Constitution’s mandate for a uniform federal maritime law applied to the courts as federal common law, including the principle that contracting parties’ choice of law is presumptively valid).
