Cruise lines often include foreign forum clauses in their passenger contracts, requiring lawsuits to be brought in a specific foreign jurisdiction. If a passenger sues in their local court instead, the court may throw out the case, as U.S. courts rarely refuse to enforce such clauses.
For example, Viking requires suits to be brought in the Civil Court of Basel-Stadt, Switzerland, for cruises not in the U.S. or going to or from a U.S. point. Uniworld requires suits to be brought in the civil court in Rheinfelden, Switzerland, while Costa requires suits to be brought in the courts in Genoa, Italy.
Enforceability of Foreign Forum Clauses
Courts have enforced foreign forum clauses even when the foreign country’s law limits damages. In Estate of Myhra v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit enforced a clause requiring suits to be brought in England, despite English law capping the cruise line’s liability at about $73,000.
The few cases that have held foreign forums unenforceable have been decided on grounds of lack of notice. For example, in Howard v. Kerzner International, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida allowed a wife’s case to go forward in Florida because she had no notice of the contract, while her husband had to sue in the Bahamas.
Size of Claim and Notice
The size of the claim does not matter, as the Supreme Court’s test in Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute requires a passenger to show that litigating in the chosen forum would be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that they would effectively be denied their day in court. The expense of suing abroad, even when it exceeds the amount at stake, has not met this test, so for a small claim, the forum clause effectively ends the case, unless the contract allows for arbitration or mediation.