Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
187 L. Ed. 2d 487 | Supreme Court of the United States | 2013
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Atlantic Marine, a Virginia subcontractor, had a forum-selection clause in its contract requiring disputes to be handled in Virginia. When the Texas contractor sued in Texas instead, Atlantic Marine asked the court to dismiss or transfer the case. The Supreme Court ruled that forum-selection clauses in construction contracts must be enforced and given controlling weight, except in rare situations. Courts must use transfer motions (not dismissals) to honor these clauses, and the party trying to ignore the clause bears the burden of proving an exception applies.
Key Takeaways
- •Include a clear forum-selection clause in every subcontract specifying where disputes will be resolved—courts will enforce it.
- •If sued in the wrong location, file a transfer motion under §1404(a), not a dismissal motion, to enforce your forum clause.
- •The other party must prove exceptional circumstances to override your forum-selection clause; you don't have to prove the clause is valid.
Forum-selection clause should be given controlling weight in all but exceptional cases.
Frequently Asked Question
If my subcontract says disputes go to Virginia but the contractor sues me in Texas, can I force the case back to Virginia?
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that forum-selection clauses must be enforced and given controlling weight. File a motion to transfer the case under federal law §1404(a). The contractor would need to prove exceptional circumstances to override your clause, which is very difficult to do.
Related Cases
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase
An arbitrator's decision is generally not reviewable for errors of fact or law, with limited exceptions for fraud, corruption, exceeding powers, or procedural unfairness.
Rory v. Continental Insurance
Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.
Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
A standard merger clause without clear and unequivocal language expressly disclaiming reliance does not bar a fraud claim, even in a commercial lease agreement between parties.