The plaintiffs embarked on a cruise from Buenos Aires, Argentina, to Santiago, Chile, on the vessel MS Amsterdam owned/operated by the defendant Holland America Line Inc (HAL). Mrs Paul fell ill with stomach cramping during the cruise, and later (after returning home from the cruise) developed heart blockage and cardiomyopathy. The plaintiffs claimed that the heart problems stemmed from an echovirus she had contracted aboard the Amsterdam, and sought damages for Mrs Paul and for Mr Paul's loss of consortium. HAL moved for partial summary judgment limiting the plaintiffs' damages pursuant to their tickets/contract of passage, which purported to incorporate the limitation of liability provisions of the Athens Convention 1974.

Held: Motion granted. The Court applied the two-part 'reasonable communicativeness' test ((1) physical characteristics and (2) 'surrounding circumstances'/'extrinsic factors' of the ticket/contract) to determine whether the tickets/contract of passage sufficiently incorporated and informed the plaintiffs of the limitation of liability.

The Court held that the 'physical characteristics' prong was satisfied because each odd-numbered page of the ticket/contract included the all-capital word 'CONTRACT' along the margin, and each even-numbered page included the marginal statement: 'Issued subject to the terms and conditions on this page and the following pages. Read terms and conditions carefully.' Likewise, the limitation clause itself was printed under the heading 'Governing Law, Transferability, Separability', which was sufficient even though the reference to the Athens Convention 1974 was in small type underneath.

As to the second prong of the test, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the limitation provision was confusing (because it referred to both the Athens Convention and US law), and would have required them to independently research the Athens Convention to determine the actual limitation of liability in question. To the first point, the Court held that the reference to both sets of laws was clearly explained: US law would apply to any cruise originating/terminating or making port calls in the US, and the Athens Convention would apply to any foreign cruises. To the second point, the Court held that the specific designation of 46,666 SDRs as the applicable limitation under the Athens Convention 1974 was sufficient to inform the passengers of the applicable limit, as they would merely need to visit the International Monetary Fund to convert the amount to USD. The Court also noted that the test is not necessarily whether the passenger can determine the specific amount of limitation, but rather whether passengers know that the contractual term affects their legal rights. Finally, the Court found the incorporation of the Athens Convention applicable as a matter of freedom of contract even though the US and Amsterdam [sic] are not parties to the Convention itself.

Separately, the Court dismissed Mr Paul's loss of consortium claim pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's rule that loss of consortium claims are not cognisable in cases governed by general maritime law.