The plaintiffs were passengers of the Caribbean Princess, which was operated by Princess Cruise Line Ltd (Princess Cruise). They were swimming in the designated swimming area when the Carnival Destiny, operated by the defendant, got underway from the adjacent dock in a manner that created a wake, swell and undercurrent which pulled plaintiffs toward the Carnival Destiny, underwater, and out to sea past the designated swimming area.

Plaintiffs asserted a variety of claims, including negligence, infliction of emotional distress, unseaworthiness, and violations of 46 USC § 2303(a), 46 USC § 2304(a)(1), regulations promulgated by the United States Coast Guard, International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), the International Convention of Safety of Lives at Sea (SOLAS), and the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Assistance and Salvage at Sea 1910 (Salvage Convention 1910) against the defendants. However, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the contractual limitation period contained in the Princess Cruise passage contract because they were ‘affiliated or related companies’ of Princess Cruise. The contractual limitation period provided by the passage contract was one year from the date of the injury.

Held: The court concluded that the Princess Cruise passage contract applied to plaintiffs’ claims. The court further noted that the passage contract satisfied the two-pronged reasonable communicativeness test. Therefore, the contractual limitation provision contained in passage contract was binding and the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the contractual limitation provision.