The Estate of Tore Myhra v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
695 F.3d 1233
11th Cir.2012Background
- Estate sues Royal Caribbean in US district court for injuries and death allegedly caused by Legionnaire’s disease contracted on a Royal Caribbean cruise.
- Forum-selection clause requires litigation in England and Wales and English-law governance; clause tied to Athens Convention.
- District court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue, relying on the forum clause and considerations of notice and public policy.
- Estate argues § 30509(a) bars the clause as it would enable liability limitations under the Athens Convention, and that the clause was not reasonably communicated.
- Record shows Myhra was a UK resident with booking through a UK agent; notices about the UK terms and conditions were distributed with invoices and travel documents.
- Court reviews enforceability of forum-selection clauses in international contracts, citing Bremen and subsequent cruise-line decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the forum-selection clause violates US public policy. | Myhra’s estate argues § 30509(a) voids clauses invoking Athens limits. | Clause is consistent with public policy and enforceable. | No violation; clause enforceable under federal public-policy analysis. |
| Whether § 30509(a) bars enforcing the forum clause when it would apply the Athens Convention’s liability limits. | Clause imposes liability limitations in the chosen forum. | Statute does not prohibit forum-selection clauses; liability limit arises from substantive law, not venue. | Statute does not bar forum clause; not a direct limitation within the clause. |
| Whether the forum clause was reasonably communicated to the Myhras. | Terms were not reasonably communicated; evidence shows website edits post-cruise. | Multiple notices in invoices and travel packet reasonably informed Myhras. | Clause reasonably communicated; not void for overreaching. |
| Whether enforcing the forum clause would contravene fundamental fairness or permit overreaching. | Clause may be adhesive and unfair to plaintiffs. | Clause negotiated in a routine cruise-ticket context; not inherently overreaching. | No fundamental unfairness; clause enforceable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1972) (forum clauses are prima facie valid but scrutinized for public policy and fairness)
- Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (U.S. 1991) (upheld enforceability of cruise-line forum clauses but allowed review for fairness and notice)
- Lipcon v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 148 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 1998) (special standard for 12(b)(3) in international context; deference but de novo review for policy concerns)
- Wallis v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 306 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2002) (reasonableness of notice and presentation of clause in ticket contracts)
- Spataro v. Kloster Cruise, Ltd., 894 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1990) (notice-and-readability test for forum clauses in cruise contracts)
- Krenkel v. Kerzner Int’l Hotels Ltd., 579 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2009) (reasonable communication test for non-negotiated forum clauses)