The plaintiff, Mr Lowes, was a passenger on the defendant's ship, the Spectrum of the Seas. On 9 May 2019, as the plaintiff was exiting the ship, he tripped and fell on a gap in the gangplank ramp, sustaining serious bodily injuries. He incurred numerous medical expenses because of these injuries. The plaintiff filed this action on 22 September 2020. On 1 February 2021, the defendant moved to dismiss the case with prejudice as the plaintiff's claims were time-barred. According to the defendant, when the plaintiff purchased his ticket, he entered into a ticket contract setting out a one-year statute of limitations.

The parties disputed which part of the ticket contract provided the statute of limitations controlling this action. The defendant argued that s 10(a) provided a one-year statute of limitations. Section 10 was titled 'NOTICE OF CLAIMS AND COMMENCEMENT OF SUIT OR ARBITRATION; SECURITY'. Section 10(a) read:

TIME LIMITS FOR PERSONAL INJURY/ILLNESS/DEATH CLAIMS: NO SUIT SHALL BE MAINTAINABLE AGAINST CARRIER, THE VESSEL OR THE TRANSPORT FOR PERSONAL INJURY, ILLNESS OR DEATH OF ANY PASSENGER UNLESS [...] SUIT IS COMMENCED (FILED) WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF SUCH INJURY, ILLNESS OR DEATH[.]

The plaintiff argued that s 11(e) provided a two-year statute of limitations. Section 11 was titled 'LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY'. Section 11(e) read:

ON CRUISES WHICH ARE BOOKED BY A PASSENGER IN A EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER STATE, OR WHICH EMBARK OR DISEMBARK IN A PORT LOCATED IN A EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER STATE, THE CARRIER SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF ANY AND ALL RESTRICTIONS, EXEMPTIONS, IMMUNITIES, AND LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY SET FORTH IN EUROPEAN UNION REGULATION 392/2009 ON THE LIABILITY OF CARRIERS TO PASSENGERS IN THE EVENT OF ACCIDENTS ('EU 392/2009').

Section 11(e) continued, 'EU 392/2009 LIMITS CARRIER'S LIABILITY AS FOLLOWS', and went on to explain monetary limitations of carrier liability in specific situations. According to the plaintiff, because he embarked the Spectrum of the Seas in Barcelona, Spain - a port located in an EU Member State - EU Regulation 392/2009 applied. In turn, the EU Regulation incorporated the statute of limitations provided for in art 16 of the Athens Convention 1974, which provides a two-year statute of limitations. Because the plaintiff's suit was filed less than two years after the injury, it was timely.

Held: Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff's action is time-barred.

Pursuant to the language of the contract, s 11(e) applies '[o]n cruises which are booked by a passenger in a European Union member state, or which embark or disembark in a port located in a European Union member state'[.]' The plain language of the provision says that it applies to 'cruises [...] which embark' in certain ports, not that it applies to passengers who embark in certain ports. The parties agree that the plaintiff first boarded the Spectrum of the Seas in Barcelona. However, the plaintiff purchased two consecutive cruise tickets on the Spectrum of the Seas. The first ticket was for a cruise beginning in Barcelona and ending in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The second ticket was for a cruise beginning in Dubai and ending in Singapore. Section 2(c) defines a cruise as 'the specific cruise covered by this Ticket Contract'. The second page of the guest booklet provides a cruise summary and specifies Dubai as the port of embarkation, and Singapore as the port of disembarkation. There is no question that the plaintiff's injury occurred during this second cruise. Accordingly, s 11(e) does not apply here.

Although s 11(e) does not apply to the plaintiff's cruise, it appears that s 11(d) does. This section applies to cruises 'which do not embark, disembark or call' at a port in the United States or the EU. Section 11(d) provides that:

CARRIER SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ANY AND ALL LIABILITY LIMITATIONS, IMMUNITIES AND RIGHTS APPLICABLE TO IT UNDER THE 'ATHENS CONVENTION RELATING TO THE CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS AND THEIR LUGGAGE BY SEA' OF 1974, AS WELL AS THE 'PROTOCOL TO THE ATHENS CONVENTION RELATING TO THE CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS AND THEIR LUGGAGE BY SEA' OF 1976 ('ATHENS CONVENTION').

The Court concludes that s 11(d) (incorporating the Athens Convention) does not modify the one-year statute of limitations in s 10(a), for the reasons stated in Farris v Celebrity Cruises Inc No 11-21489-CIV, 2011 WL 13175627 (SD Fla, 29 June 2011) (CMI794), aff'd 487 F App'x 542 (11th Cir 2012) (CMI795). As in Farris, s 11(d) states that 'the carrier shall be entitled' to 'any and all liability limitations, immunities, and rights applicable to it'. Pursuant to the definitions in the contract, the plaintiff is not a carrier, but a passenger. On its face, s 11(d) does not entitle the plaintiff to anything - and certainly not to a longer statute of limitations than he agreed to under s 10(a). This reading is further supported by the overall structure of s 11, which is titled 'Limitations on Liability', and deals exclusively with limitations on the liability of the carrier, not additional rights of the passenger. Section 11(d) therefore does not modify the one-year statute of limitations in s 10(a).

The plaintiff also raises an argument concerning the defendant's alleged failure to reasonably communicate the material terms of the contract. The Court sees no need to address this at length, because the plaintiff argues that the two-year statute of limitations has not been reasonably communicated in s 11(e), not the one-year statute of limitations in s 10(a). Section 11(e), however, does not apply here for the reasons already stated. Even if it did, this argument would cut against the plaintiff. Where a contract provision is not reasonably communicated, it is generally considered to be unenforceable: see eg Caron v NCL (Bahamas) Ltd 910 F 3d 1359, 1367-68 (11th Cir 2018). Assuming that the plaintiff were correct on the defendant's failure to reasonably communicate a two-year statute of limitations set out in s 11(e), this would void that provision.