Defense Counsel Journal - International Association of Defense ...

The Global Supply Chain Page 419and jurisdiction governing any resultinglitigation.Generally, courts uphold choice-oflawor choice-of-venue provisions. TheBremen v. Zapapa Offshore Company isan early and prominent case addressingthe validity of choice of forumprovisions. 23 In The Bremen, thedefendant had contracted with theplaintiff to tow the plaintiff’s oceangoing,self-elevating drilling rig fromLouisiana to a point off Italy in theAdriatic Sea. The contract contained aprovision stating, “[a]ny dispute arisingmust be treated before the London Courtof Justice.”A dispute arose after the rig wasdamaged, and the plaintiff filed suit in theUnited States. The defendant moved todismiss citing the choice of forum clauseand asserting the United States court didnot have jurisdiction over the matter. Thecentral issue before the court was whetherthe choice of forum clause was valid. Inupholding the validity of the provisions,the court stated in part:The choice of that forum wasmade in an arms-lengthnegotiation by experienced andsophisticated businessmen, andabsent some compellingreason, it should be honored bythe parties and enforced by thecourts. 24A similar result was reached inMilanovich v. Costa Crociere. 25 There,the plaintiff resided in the District of23 407 U.S. 1 (1972).24 Id. at 12.25 954 F.2d 763 (D.C. Cir. 1992).Columbia and booked passage for aCaribbean cruise on an Italian vessel.The plaintiff alleged that while ininternational waters, a deck chaircollapsed, causing Mr. Milanovich tosustain serious injury. Plaintiff filed suitin the United States District Court for theDistrict of Columbia.The defendant argued that the ticketissued to the plaintiff stated that anypersonal injury actions had to beinstituted within one year of the date theaccident occurred and that Italian law wasthe “ruling law of this contract.” 26 Thecourt concluded that the determination ofwhether the contractual statute oflimitations was valid depended upon theresolution of governing law. The courtnoted that, while some courts view choiceof law provisions as only one factor indetermining the applicable law, thisinterpretation mainly reflects the court’sreluctance to automatically enforce theterms of such adhesion contracts againstpassengers. The court went on to state:While these concerns warrantheightened judicial scrutiny ofchoice of law provisions inpassage tickets, they do notsanction their utter disregard,especially when there are nocountervailing policies of theforum implicated and what it isthe non-drafting party thatseeks enforcement of thechoice of law provision. 27In referencing The Bremen, the courtstated:26 Id. at 764.27 Id. at 767.