Every cruise passenger agrees to a ticket contract, usually without reading it. Buried in that contract is a clause most passengers never notice until they are hurt: a deadline to sue, often one year from the date of injury, far shorter than the three years federal maritime law otherwise allows. When a passenger files after that year, or close to it, the cruise line’s first move is predictable. It attaches the ticket contract to a motion to dismiss and asks the court to end the case before any evidence is taken.
Sometimes that works. In Roberts v. Carnival Corp., No. 19-14993 (11th Cir. Aug. 24, 2020), it did at first. The district court dismissed our client’s slip-and-fall case on the one-year clause. We appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit vacated the dismissal. The reasoning matters to anyone hurt on a cruise, because it describes when a cruise line can and cannot win on its ticket deadline at the very start of a case.
The short version
A cruise line’s ticket deadline is a defense. The cruise line has to prove it. At the motion to dismiss stage, the court takes the complaint as true and asks only whether the complaint itself shows the case is barred. If it does not, the cruise line’s word that the passenger was properly warned is not enough. The passenger is entitled to test that claim with evidence.
Why cruise lines can shorten the deadline at all
Maritime personal injury claims carry a default limitations period of three years under 46 U.S.C. § 30106. Congress also allows cruise lines to shorten that period by contract, but not below one year, under 46 U.S.C. § 30508(b)(2) (now renumbered as 46 U.S.C. § 30526). The Eleventh Circuit noted both statutes in Roberts. So a one-year clause is lawful on its face. The question is whether a particular passenger is bound by it.
That question turns on what courts call reasonable communicativeness. A ticket deadline is enforceable only if it was “reasonably communicated to the passenger.” The Eleventh Circuit applies a two-part test: (1) “the physical characteristics of the clause” and (2) “the passenger’s opportunity to become meaningfully informed of the contract terms.” (Roberts, quoting Caron v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 910 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir. 2018).)
The two problems with dismissing Roberts’s case
The court of appeals found two separate errors, and each one is a lesson.
First, the district court looked outside the complaint. On a motion to dismiss, a court generally decides the case on the complaint and its attachments. If it relies on outside documents, it must convert the motion into one for summary judgment and give the other side a chance to respond with evidence. There is a narrow exception for a document that is referred to in the complaint, central to the claim, and of undisputed authenticity. Carnival argued the ticket contract fit that exception. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. The ticket was not central to the claim because it was not a necessary part of Roberts’s effort to show she was injured through Carnival’s negligence. Carnival had also relied on an “acceptance report” it said showed Roberts received the ticket terms, and the court found that document was neither referenced in the complaint nor relevant to the negligence claim.
The court also rejected Carnival’s argument that the deadline was a “condition precedent” the passenger had to satisfy. It found no legal support for that label and observed that it does not “make much sense to describe a limitations period as a condition that must occur before a suit can be maintained.”
Second, even if the ticket could be considered, the deadline question could not be decided on the face of the complaint. The court restated a basic rule: a limitations bar “is an affirmative defense, and plaintiffs are not required to negate an affirmative defense in their complaint.” Dismissal on that ground “is appropriate only if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the claim is time-barred.”
“is appropriate only if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the claim is time-barred.”
Eleventh Circuit, Roberts v. Carnival Corp. (2020)
Here is the heart of the decision. The second half of the reasonable communicativeness test looks at facts outside the contract: the passenger’s actual opportunity to review the terms before boarding. A ticket, by itself, cannot answer that question. As the court put it, Carnival’s argument that the contract alone decides the issue “effectively collapses the test into a single factor.” Because Roberts’s complaint was silent on those outside facts, and she had no opportunity to submit evidence about them, the case could not be thrown out on the deadline at the pleading stage.
“effectively collapses the test into a single factor.”
Eleventh Circuit, Roberts v. Carnival Corp. (2020)
What this means if you were hurt on a cruise
- Do not assume a late or close filing is the end of your case. Whether a one-year clause binds you depends on how and when the terms were presented to you, and that is a factual question.
- Do not wait to find out. The safest course is always to file within the ticket deadline. Roberts helps passengers who face a deadline fight; it does not eliminate the deadline.
- Check the ticket for other traps. Many cruise tickets also require written notice of a claim within a short period and require suit in a particular federal court, often in Miami. Those clauses have their own rules.
- Keep everything. Booking emails, the order in which you received documents, whether you booked through a travel agent, and when you first saw the terms can all matter if the cruise line raises its deadline.
A note on what Roberts is and is not
The Eleventh Circuit designated its opinion as unpublished, which means it is not binding precedent in later cases, although courts may consider it. The court also vacated its first opinion in the case, issued July 28, 2020, and substituted the August 24, 2020 opinion linked on this page. The principles it applies, that limitations is an affirmative defense and that a complaint need not anticipate it, come from the court’s published decisions, which the opinion cites. After the case returned to the district court, it was resolved by settlement.
How we approach cruise cases
Cruise lines defend injury claims with teams that know the ticket contract better than any passenger ever will. We read the ticket the way the cruise line’s lawyers do, we move quickly to meet every notice and filing deadline, and when a cruise line tries to end a case on paper, we make it prove its defense. If you were hurt on a cruise ship, call us at 305-748-3789 for a free consultation. Meetings by appointment only.
This article is general information, not legal advice for your situation. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.