Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co.

Great Lakes Insurance SE issued a yacht insurance policy to Raiders Retreat Realty Co. containing a New York choice-of-law clause. After the vessel sustained damage, the insurer denied coverage under New York law, citing the insured's breach of certain warranties. Raiders Retreat sued in federal court, arguing that Pennsylvania public policy should apply because it would not bar the claim. The district court enforced the New York choice-of-law clause, but the Third Circuit reversed, holding that state public policy could override a maritime choice-of-law clause. On February 21, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that choice-of-law clauses in maritime insurance contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law and that state public policy cannot displace them.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit and held that maritime insurance choice-of-law clauses are presumptively enforceable as a matter of federal maritime law. State public policy cannot override the chosen law; the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that ruling.

Whether choice-of-law clauses in maritime insurance contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, and whether a state's public policy can override the chosen law in such contracts.

The decision strengthens predictability and uniformity in maritime insurance by affirming the enforceability of choice-of-law clauses. It limits forum shopping based on favorable state public policy and reinforces the primacy of federal admiralty law in marine contract disputes.