CITGO Asphalt Refining v. Frescati Shipping
In brief
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling that this safe-berth clause guaranteed safety, rather than requiring only reasonable care.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 7-2 · March 30, 2020 · Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
- What it’s about
- In a dispute over a tanker’s charter agreement, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court and ruled that an unqualified safe-berth clause requires CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. to provide a safe place for Frescati Shipping Co.’s ship.
- Who it affects
- The decision settles the contract-reading dispute in this case: the charterer's promise was treated as a guarantee of berth safety, not just a reasonable-care duty. It leaves the Third Circuit's ruling in place.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The clause creates a warranty of safety (a binding promise that the berth will be safe), not merely a duty to use due diligence.
This case resolved a maritime-law dispute over whether a safe-berth promise guarantees safety or requires only reasonable care.
Question presented
Whether under federal maritime law a safe berth clause in a voyage charter contract is a guarantee of a ship's safety, as the Third Circuit below and the Second Circuit have held, or a duty of due diligence, as the Fifth Circuit has held.
What the Court decided
Holding
The plain language of the parties’ safe-berth clause establishes a warranty of safety. 886 F. 3d 291, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
From the opinions
“The majority concludes that the safe-berth clause in the contract at issue unambiguously created a warranty of safety by the charterer.”
What's next
The Supreme Court's review is complete. The Third Circuit's ruling remains in place, including its reading of the clause as a safety warranty.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
New analysis added
Show 6 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did CITGO v. Frescati decide?
- The Supreme Court upheld the Third Circuit and decided that the safe-berth clause was a warranty, or guarantee, of safety.
- How did the Court read the safe-berth clause?
- It read the clause as a guarantee that the berth would be safe, not merely a duty to use reasonable care.
- What did Justice Thomas argue?
- Justice Thomas said the clause's text created no safety warranty and would have sent the case back to test industry custom.
- What happens next after CITGO v. Frescati?
- The Supreme Court's review is complete, and the Third Circuit's ruling remains in place, including its safety-warranty interpretation.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.