On Monday, March 6, the US Supreme Court docket agreed to listen to an insurance coverage protection dispute, Nice Lakes Insurance coverage SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC.  Insurance coverage instances are few and much between within the excessive courtroom, so each policyholders and their insurers can be watching the Nice Lakes case with nice curiosity.  Notably, whereas the case includes the specialised space of maritime legislation, how the Supreme Court docket chooses to deal with the choice-of-law difficulty it presents may have a lot broader implications.

The Nice Lakes case calls upon the Supreme Court docket to think about whether or not the “robust public coverage” of a state the place a case is filed can override the presumptive validity of a choice-of-law provision in a maritime insurance coverage contract.  That staid authorized difficulty doesn’t inform the entire story, nonetheless.  In Nice Lakes, the events are arguing about whether or not the choice-of-law provision in a shipowner’s insurance coverage coverage governs the state legislation that applies to the shipowner’s extra-contractual “unhealthy religion” claims towards its insurer, which refused to pay damages after a ship ran aground.  Completely different states apply vastly completely different authorized requirements to find out whether or not an insurer denied protection in unhealthy religion, and deciding which state’s legislation applies might be final result determinative.  Right here, the insurer says that the choice-of-law provision within the coverage (which favors New York legislation) is inviolable below federal maritime legislation and voids the unhealthy religion claims the policyholder pleaded below Pennsylvania legislation.  The shipowner disagrees, arguing that Pennsylvania, the state the place the insurance coverage protection case is filed, has a “robust public coverage” of holding insurers liable for his or her bad-faith conduct, making the New York choice-of-law provision unenforceable.  Either side depend on completely different long-standing Supreme Court docket maritime-law precedent for his or her respective positions.

The insurer requested the Supreme Court docket to take the Nice Lakes case on attraction from the Third Circuit, which sided with the shipowner that the maritime choice-of-law provision must give approach if the discussion board state of “Pennsylvania has a robust public coverage that may be thwarted by making use of New York legislation.”  In its choice, the Third Circuit additionally alluded to the “extra intriguing argument” that the choice-of-law provision within the maritime insurance coverage coverage, even when legitimate, didn’t unambiguously dictate that New York legislation utilized to the shipowner’s additional contractual bad-faith claims.  The Third Circuit declined to succeed in the paradox difficulty, nonetheless, as a result of the policyholder had not raised it within the district courtroom case.

How the Supreme Court docket addresses the choice-of-law difficulty right here may have important ramifications not just for maritime instances going ahead, but additionally for different disputes over choice-of-law provisions.  On one hand, the Court docket may narrowly conclude that federal maritime legislation upholds choice-of-law provisions as to each contractual and further contractual claims, regardless of any potential conflicts with discussion board state legislation.  That ruling is likely to be confined to the maritime-law area.  Alternatively, nonetheless, the Court docket may determine, as did the Third Circuit, {that a} choice-of-law provision can’t be used to thwart the general public coverage of the discussion board state, significantly within the context of state-law-dependent insurance coverage claims.  This latter strategy, even when couched within the maritime legislation framework in Nice Lakes, would little question embolden events to problem the appliance of choice-of-law provisions that battle with discussion board state legislation in all kinds of insurance coverage disputes.  Because of this, courtroom watchers anticipate that policyholder and insurance coverage teams alike will search permission to submit amicus arguments to the Court docket supporting their respective views.