How should a federal court decide whether to enforce a choice-of-law provision? That’s the question at the heart of Great Lakes Insurance v. Raiders Retreat Realty, a maritime coverage dispute that will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in October. See No. 22-500 (U.S. 2023). However the court rules, the decision could have wide-ranging implications for insurance disputes—even those on land.

A Shipwreck and an Appeal

The dispute arose after a yacht ran aground in 2019 near Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The yacht—although intact—sustained serious damage in the wreck. Its owner, Raiders Retreat Realty (Raiders Retreat), filed a claim for coverage with its insurer, Great Lakes Insurance (Great Lakes), which denied the claim after learning that the boat’s fire extinguishers had not been inspected and recertified. Great Lakes then brought a declaratory-judgment action against Raiders Retreat (a Pennsylvania-based company) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]