Although the parent company of Costa Cruises, the operator of the ill-fated Costa Concordia, is based in Miami, U.S. passengers seeking to file lawsuits in U.S. courts face significant legal hurdles. The disaster, which occurred on January 13, 2012, off the coast of Italy, left at least 16 people dead and another 16 missing after the cruise ship capsized. However, the fine print on the tickets purchased by the more than 3,000 passengers onboard may limit their legal options.
The Choice of Forum Clause
At the heart of the issue is the “choice of forum” clause contained in the cruise ticket contract. This clause specifies that any lawsuits arising from incidents aboard the Costa Concordia must be filed in Italy, where Costa Cruises is based. Such clauses are standard in the cruise industry and are designed to limit where legal actions can be brought, making it more difficult for passengers to sue the company in more convenient or favorable jurisdictions, such as the United States.
This type of provision was upheld in the landmark 1991 U.S. Supreme Court case Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute. In that case, the Court ruled that a similar forum selection clause in a cruise ticket was enforceable, despite the fact that the passengers had little choice in agreeing to the terms. Since then, cruise lines, including Costa and its parent company Carnival, have used these clauses to steer lawsuits to foreign courts.
Impact on Costa Concordia Passengers
For U.S. passengers aboard the Costa Concordia, this clause means that they would likely need to file lawsuits in Genoa, Italy, where Costa’s operations are based. The prospect of pursuing legal action in a foreign country can be daunting. It involves navigating a different legal system, dealing with higher costs, and managing the logistical challenges of coordinating a case from abroad.
Many injured passengers are deterred by the significant financial burden of filing lawsuits in foreign courts, especially when the costs of travel, hiring foreign attorneys, and managing other legal expenses are factored in. This is especially true for passengers who may already be facing medical expenses and lost wages due to the accident.
Comparison to Other Forms of Travel
The cruise industry’s use of forum selection clauses stands in stark contrast to other forms of travel, such as airlines. For domestic airline flights, passengers generally have more flexibility in choosing where to file lawsuits, often in any jurisdiction where the airline does business. For international flights, passengers can typically sue in the airline’s home country or where the flight originated or ended.
The more restrictive nature of cruise ticket contracts has raised concerns about fairness, especially in cases where passengers have little bargaining power or understanding of the legal consequences of signing such agreements. Passengers often do not realize that by purchasing a ticket, they are agreeing to litigate in a foreign court.
Legal Precedents and Challenges
The Costa Concordia case is not the first instance where U.S. courts have upheld forum selection clauses in cruise tickets. In 2011, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Regent Seven Seas Cruises Inc. in a similar case. A California woman, Nina Seung, had broken her leg on a cruise departing from Tahiti and attempted to sue the cruise line in a Florida federal court. However, the ticket required her to file the lawsuit in Paris, and the court upheld the clause despite her financial difficulties in pursuing a case overseas.
In her court filings, Seung explained that the forum selection clause effectively barred her from seeking justice. Without the financial means to travel to Paris and pursue her claim, she had no practical way of bringing her lawsuit forward. This case, like others before it, demonstrates how the legal system often upholds the validity of these clauses, even when they place significant burdens on passengers.
Contracts of Adhesion
One of the major criticisms of forum selection clauses in cruise ticket contracts is that they represent “contracts of adhesion.” These are agreements where one party, typically a consumer, has no ability to negotiate or alter the terms. The cruise line holds all the power in drafting the contract, and passengers must either accept the terms as they are or forego the purchase. Many legal experts argue that such clauses are fundamentally unfair, especially when they impose unreasonable burdens on passengers seeking legal recourse.
In the Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute case, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that passengers do not meaningfully agree to the terms in cruise tickets. However, the Court ultimately upheld the validity of the forum selection clause, reasoning that it provided consistency and predictability for cruise operators, even if it disadvantaged passengers.
Conclusion
For passengers who survived the Costa Concordia disaster or lost loved ones in the tragedy, the legal battle may be just as challenging as the physical and emotional recovery. The forum selection clause in their cruise tickets requires them to bring lawsuits in Italy, making it difficult for U.S. passengers to seek justice in their home country. While legal precedents support the enforceability of such clauses, critics argue that they create an unfair barrier to compensation, especially for passengers who cannot afford the financial and logistical burdens of foreign litigation.
As the case moves forward, it will continue to shed light on the broader issue of consumer rights in the cruise industry and the legal obstacles that can arise from the fine print in ticket contracts. For those seeking to challenge these clauses, the path will not be easy, but it may prompt further discussion about the fairness of these legal provisions and the need for reform in how cruise lines handle passenger rights.
