The plaintiff fell ill and allegedly received substandard medical treatment during a cruise aboard the Nautica operated by Oceania Cruises Inc (Oceania), originating in Türkiye and terminating in Greece. The plaintiff filed suit in the United States federal court in Florida (as required by the forum selection clause in his ticket/passage contract): see Wajnstat v Oceania Cruises Inc (CMI790). Oceania moved for partial summary judgment limiting its liability pursuant to the Athens Convention 1974. Oceania was denied partial summary judgment. Specifically, the lower Court found that the various limitation of liability provisions in the ticket and incorporated terms and conditions were not 'reasonably communicative' under the two-factor test. While the lower Court found that the limitation of liability provisions were sufficiently conspicuous as a matter of their 'physical characteristics' (the first factor), the 'extrinsic factors' (the second factor) were insufficient to ensure the passenger could 'become meaningfully informed of the contractual terms' because they were 'confusing and … required the passengers to parse through the treaties and the statutes to determine the limits of Oceania's liability'. Notably, because it found the Convention inapplicable, the lower Court did not address the plaintiff's argument under art 13 of the Athens Convention 1974 that Oceania could not limit its liability because it had acted 'with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result'.

Oceania sought an interlocutory appeal of the non-final judgment of the lower Court denying its right to limitation of liability under the 1974 Athens Convention.

Held: The Court has no jurisdiction to hear Oceania’s interlocutory appeal on two grounds: (1) under 28 USC § 1293(a)(3), because an interlocutory decision denying limitation of liability does not determine the 'rights and liabilities of the parties' as required under the statute; or (2) under the 'collateral order doctrine', which allows for interlocutory appeal of an order that 'conclusively determine[s] the disputed question, resolve[s] an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and [is] effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment'.

Oceania argued that even though it could later appeal the denial of its alleged right to limitation if the plaintiff prevailed, it was concerned that even if the plaintiff lost, the mere existence of the lower Court's order denying limitation would be 'bad precedent' for other cases. The Eleventh Circuit rejected this argument: '[S]o what? If another court does follow the ruling and Oceania suffers a non-limited award of damages in some future case, it can appeal that judgment and argue the issue on appeal. If the appellate court agrees with Oceania on the issue, it will have suffered no harm from the reiteration of the ruling. If the appellate court disagrees with Oceania on the issue, it will have suffered nothing that it should not have.'