2009 Supreme Court term

WANDA KRUPSKI v. COSTA CROCIERE, S.P.A.

Dockets 09-337Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

According to Mark R. Bendure (Petitioner), according to Mark R. Bendure (Petitioner), according to Mark R. Bendure (Petitioner), the petitioner argues that the notice requirement under the applicable rule was satisfied.

The petitioner sent a pre‑suit notice to Costa Crociere at its Florida address and the ticket itself identifies Costa Crociere as the carrier.

According to Mr. GLAZIER, the petitioner does not rely on any theory of imputed knowledge.

Background and question before the Court

According to Justice Ginsburg, did the petitioner provide timely notice as required by the rule?

According to Justice Alito, does the rule impose imputed (or actual) knowledge on the respondent?

What each side argues

Petitioner (Wanda Krupski)

According to Mark R. Bendure (Petitioner), according to Mark R. Bendure (Petitioner), according to Mark R. Bendure (Petitioner), the petitioner's case satisfies the notice requirement and suffers no prejudice.

According to Mark R. Bendure (Petitioner), according to Mark R. Bendure (Petitioner), according to Mark R. Bendure (Petitioner), a pre‑suit notice was mailed to Costa Crociere at its Florida address, complying with the ticket’s notice provision.

According to Plaintiff, the ticket clearly identifies Costa Crociere as the carrier.

According to Mr. GLAZIER, the petitioner does not rely on any theory of imputed knowledge.

Respondent (Costa Crociere, S.p.A.)

Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.

What happened at oral argument

Justice Ginsburg asked when the petitioner first received notice of the carrier.

According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned where the rule mentions imputed knowledge.

According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia objected to treating the answer as compliance with the rule’s period requirement.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • 1f7e4ebe601d10ebd588-r1-37ad4e9edd34cba0.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.