October Term 2019 · Docket 18-565
Does a safe berth clause require the shipowner to guarantee the destination is safe?
The parties dispute whether a safe berth clause obligates the shipowner to ensure the destination is safe or merely requires reasonable care.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Phillips argued that contract evidence shows who made selections.
Ms. Ross stated the parties chose a form contract from industry standards.
Mr. Goldstein suggested the text is in equipoise and context matters.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 32-34 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 32-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 40-46 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 40-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 42-42 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 42-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 6-26 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 6-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 40-40 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 40-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 44-50 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 44-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-22 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 34-28 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 34-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 40-48 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 40-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 32-30 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 32-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 32-34 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 32-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 42-14 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 42-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 34-22 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 34-22
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
CITGO Asphalt Refining Company and Frescati Shipping Company disagree on the meaning of a safe berth clause in their 2004 contract. The clause governs the transport of oil to CITGO's berth on the Delaware River. The parties chose this form contract from industry standards. They now argue over what the safe berth term legally requires.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 44-50 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 44-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 34-28 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 34-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 32-30 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 32-30
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 5, 2019.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-22 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 32-34 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 32-34
What each side wants
CITGO wants the court to interpret the clause as requiring only reasonable care.
Frescati wants the court to interpret the clause as guaranteeing the berth is safe.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 44-50 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 44-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 34-28 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 34-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 32-30 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 32-30
What each side says
CITGO argues the clause text is ambiguous and context determines its meaning.
Frescati argues the clause creates a strict warranty that the destination is safe.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 44-50 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 44-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 34-28 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 34-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 32-30 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 32-30
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if parties can adjust to the rule and insure accordingly.
Justice Kagan asked if the Southern District follows the Second Circuit rule.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 32-34 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 32-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 40-46 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 40-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 42-42 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 42-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 6-26 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 6-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 40-40 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 40-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 40-48 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 40-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 32-34 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 32-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 42-14 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 42-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 34-22 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 34-22
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of safe berth clauses in shipping contracts. It determines who bears the risk of unsafe destinations. It affects how parties draft and price these agreements. It clarifies the legal standard for shipowners and receivers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 44-50 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 44-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 34-28 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 34-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 32-30 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 32-30
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 32-34 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 32-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 40-46 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 40-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 42-42 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 42-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 6-26 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 6-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 14-16 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 14-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 40-40 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 40-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 46-50 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 46-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-22 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 40-48 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 40-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 32-34 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 32-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 42-14 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 42-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 34-22 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 34-22
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 44-50 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 44-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 34-28 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 34-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 32-30 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 32-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 44-50 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 44-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 34-28 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 34-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 32-30 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 32-30
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.