## Facts

- Gregory Milanovich and Marjorie Koch‑Milanovich booked a one‑week Caribbean cruise on an Italian‑flag vessel owned by Costa Crociere, S.p.A.; tickets were sold in the United States through Costa Cruises, Inc.
- While the ship was in international waters, a deck chair collapsed under Gregory Milanovich, causing serious injury.
- The passenger ticket included (1) a one‑year contractual time limit to bring any personal‑injury action, measured from the date of injury, and (2) a clause selecting Italian law to govern the passage contract.
- The Milanoviches filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia one year and fifty‑three days after the injury.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment based on the ticket’s one‑year limitation.
- Plaintiffs argued the Italian choice‑of‑law clause controlled and, under Italian civil‑code rules governing adhesion contracts, liability‑limiting terms (including shortened limitation periods) are ineffective unless separately approved in writing, which did not occur.

## Issues

1. Whether the passenger ticket’s Italian choice‑of‑law clause should be enforced in a maritime personal‑injury action.
2. If Italian law governs, whether the ticket’s one‑year contractual limitation is invalid for lack of specific written assent required for liability‑limiting clauses.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit vacated summary judgment for defendants and remanded.
- The court held that the ticket’s Italian choice‑of‑law clause was enforceable under federal maritime principles.
- Applying Italian law as selected, the court accepted uncontroverted evidence that the one‑year limitation was void absent specific written approval separate from general assent to the ticket.
- The district court erred by selecting U.S. law through a contacts-balancing approach despite an express choice‑of‑law provision.

## Legal Principles

- In maritime contracts, an express choice‑of‑law clause is presumptively enforceable unless enforcement would be unreasonable, unjust, procured by fraud or overreaching, or contrary to fundamental public policy.
- Standard‑form passenger tickets are not exempt from enforcement of choice‑of‑law (and related jurisdictional) provisions solely because of adhesion characteristics, absent unfairness or misconduct.
- When a validly selected foreign law renders a liability‑limiting clause ineffective (including a shortened limitations period requiring special assent), a U.S. court must treat that clause as invalid.
- A court should not nullify an express contractual choice‑of‑law clause by substituting a generalized contacts test without a legally sufficient basis to refuse enforcement.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit enforced the cruise ticket’s Italian choice‑of‑law clause and, under Italian law, treated the one‑year contractual suit limitation as void for lack of specific written assent, requiring vacatur of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.


Milanovich v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A., 954 F.2d 763 (D.C. Cir. 1992)