The plaintiffs embarked on a cruise aboard the Queen Elizabeth II (owned/operated by Cunard Line Ltd (Cunard)) at Southampton, England, bound for New York, New York. The plaintiffs alleged that during the cruise, 22 of 31 oil and acrylic paintings packed in a special portfolio case were allegedly damaged by excessive heat in their cabin. They claimed USD 25,000 in damages. Cunard moved for partial summary judgment under the ticket/contract of passage incorporating the Athens Convention limitation for damages to luggage (art 8), which was USD 1,001.70 (because the plaintiffs had not declared any higher value). The plaintiffs initially argued that incorporation of the Athens Convention was invalid because the cruise terminated in the US, which is not a party to the Athens Convention.

Held: The ticket/contract of passage was issued in Spain, for a cruise originating in England, and both Spain and the United Kindom are signatories to the Athens Convention. In turn, art 2 of the Athens Convention provides for application in three circumstances, all of which were satisfied in this case:

a) the ship is flying the flag of or is registered in a State Party to this Convention (the Queen Elizabeth II flies under the flag of and is registered in the UK); or

b) the contract of carriage has been made in a State Party to this Convention (the ticket was purchased in Madrid, Spain); or

c) the place of departure or destination, according to the contract of carriage, is in a State Party to this Convention. (The Queen Elizabeth II departed from the UK).

The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the limitation provision should not apply because the provision was written in minuscule print and in English (a language in which they were not fluent). The Court held that the Cunard ticket satisfied the 'reasonable communicativeness test' applicable to limitation clauses in passenger documents under maritime law. The Court noted that the provision was in 8-point type; that 'Cunard's Passage Contract has been found to have met this standard' in numerous prior decisions; and that well-established maritime law precludes unfamiliarity with the English language as a basis for avoiding a provision in a passenger contract.