Note from the Editor

The seafarers of today’s global fleet are the lifeblood of our industry, working tirelessly to keep ships operating safely from port to port. “Perseverance” may not be the first word that comes to mind when asked to describe a mariner. Yet, it may be the most accurate when taking into account the time most mariners spend at sea, working away from family and friends for months on end, through heavy storms and rough seas. Working at sea is a grind. And there are no vacation days to recalibrate or take a deep breath. 

It is my belief that it is up to us: the onshore maritime community that benefits from those who go to sea, to support our seafarers whenever we can. One way to help is to donate your time or money to an association that directly helps mariners. This year, the Seamen’s Church Institute (“SCI”) will hosted its Mountain Challenge from September 25 to 28 at Sunday River Resort in Maine. More than 50 teams of three maritime industry professionals will compete in challenges that involve hiking more than 30 miles of rugged terrain, mastering obstacles, and canoeing the Androscoggin River. Perseverance is a must to complete the course. 

The goal is not to win, but to raise funds to benefit SCI and its noble mission of compassionately serving mariners and seafarers. If you wish to support an SCI Mountain Challenge team, more details and information on how to donate are available here: scimountainchallenge.org.

– William R. Bennett III

Mainbrace Editors

William R. Bennett III, Co-Editor
Emma C. Jones,
Co-Editor
Holli B. Packer, Associate Editor

IMO Net-Zero Shipping Framework: A Crossroads for Global Shipping Regulations

Jeanne M. Grasso and Holli B. Packer ●

Introduction: A New Era for Maritime Decarbonization

The International Maritime Organization’s (“IMO”) Marine Environment Protection Committee approved a sweeping package of draft regulations known as the “IMO Net-Zero Shipping Framework” (the “Framework”) in April 2025. This Framework will be voted on in October 2025 and, if adopted, will enter into force by March 2027. It marks an ambitious and comprehensive global effort to align the maritime sector with international climate goals. However, the Framework has also sparked significant debate among IMO member states, most notably the United States, which has voiced strong opposition to the proposed measures. This article provides an overview of the proposed regulations and broader industry implications, while also highlighting the United States’ position and the Framework’s potential impact on the future of maritime decarbonization.

The IMO Net-Zero Framework: Scope and Ambition

The Framework is the centerpiece of the IMO’s mid-term greenhouse gas (“GHG”) reduction measures, intended to be formalized as a new Chapter 5 of MARPOL Annex VI. Its primary objective is to achieve net-zero GHG emissions from international shipping by 2050, in line with the 2023 IMO Strategy on GHG Emissions. The Framework applies to all vessels of 5,000 gross tons and above on international voyages, with limited exceptions for vessels operating solely within national waters, non-mechanically propelled vessels, and certain offshore platforms.

Continue reading “IMO Net-Zero Shipping Framework: A Crossroads for Global Shipping Regulations”

The Rise of Nuclear Verdicts for Jones Act Seamen: Transforming Maritime Personal Injury Litigation

William R. Bennett III and Holli B. Packer ●

Introduction

The maritime industry, long governed by a unique set of laws and traditions, is facing a new and formidable challenge: the rise of “nuclear verdicts” in personal injury cases, particularly those involving Jones Act seamen. These outsized jury awards, typically defined as verdicts of $10 million or more, are reshaping the landscape of maritime litigation, insurance, and risk management.[1] As the frequency and size of these verdicts increase, shipowners, insurers, and maritime employers are grappling with the implications for business operations, insurability, and the broader rule of law. 

Drivers of Nuclear Verdicts in Jones Act Cases

Nuclear verdicts are not a new concept in American tort law but their proliferation in maritime personal injury cases is a relatively recent trend. The Jones Act grants seamen the right to a jury trial and, in many cases, access to state courts, which have proven more likely than federal courts to produce nuclear verdicts. In the context of the Jones Act, these verdicts pose serious financial consequences for shipowners and their insurers. Insurers must analyze future risk and consider the possibility of a nuclear verdict, and at the same time quote a reasonable premium.

Continue reading “The Rise of Nuclear Verdicts for Jones Act Seamen: Transforming Maritime Personal Injury Litigation”

Whose Freight Is It Anyway? Consignee Liability for Unpaid Ocean Freight

Zachary R. Cain ●

A shipment of jet fuel travels from Singapore to California, where you, the consignee-owner, happily take possession of your cargo.[1] You had purchased the fuel on Cost and Freight (“CFR”) terms,[2] so once the fuel is offloaded from the ship and you pay your supplier, you expect that should be the end of your concerns for the delivery. But, as it turns out, the shipper/charterer failed to pay the ocean carrier all the freight charges owed, and now the carrier is looking to you to get paid, claiming you are liable for the unpaid freight under the bills of lading and charterparty. Are you on the hook for those unpaid charges?

As with so many legal questions, it depends.

Who’s Who and What’s What? 

First, a quick vocabulary refresher.

A bill of lading is a document “issued by the shipowner when goods are loaded on its ship, and may, depending on the circumstances, serve as a receipt, a document of title, a contract for the carriage of goods, or all of the above.” Asoma Corp. v. SK Shipping Co., 467 F.3d 817, 823 (2d Cir. 2006). Generally, “a bill of lading is the basic transportation contract between the shipper/consignor and the carrier, the terms and conditions of which bind the shipper and all connecting carriers.” Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Sears Roebuck, & Co., 513 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2008).

A negotiable bill of lading is typically made out “to the order” of a party and can subsequently be reassigned by endorsing the bill.[3] If a bill is negotiable, it acts as a document of title, and a carrier may typically only deliver goods when physically presented with the original bill.

Anon-negotiable bill of lading, while identifying a consignee, may not be negotiated, and instead is more like a receipt, as well as evidence of the contract of carriage. The carrier is obligated to deliver the shipped goods only to the specific consignee identified on the bill.

Freight in this context is the charge for transporting the goods by ocean carrier.

A carrier is the company that physically transports the goods for the shipper.[4]

The term consignor or shipper refers to the party that delivers goods to a carrier for transport.

A consignee “is the party designated to receive the shipped goods from the carrier.” Kanematsu Corp. v. M/V Gretchen W, 897 F. Supp. 1314, 1315 (D. Or. 1995).

A notify party is “the party to be notified when the goods arrive at their destination.” Dynamic Worldwide Logistics, Inc. v. Exclusive Expressions, LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d 364, 367 n. 3 (S.D.N.Y 2015). Frequently, but not always, the notify party is also the consignee.

Continue reading “Whose Freight Is It Anyway? Consignee Liability for Unpaid Ocean Freight”

Service of Process in Arbitration Enforcement Actions

G. Evan Spencer and Noe S. Hamra ●

Maritime disputes often find their way to arbitration. Whether the arbitrations are sited in the United States or another country, collection of arbitration awards frequently requires that the prevailing party initiate a civil lawsuit to recognize and enforce the arbitration award in a U.S. federal court. In instances where the award debtor is foreign, serving process pursuant to U.S. rules often presents a significant hurdle to enforcing the award. 

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) provides that service of process can be effected on a foreign defendant by any internationally agreed means that is reasonably calculated to give notice or, if no such agreed means exists, by service reasonably calculated to give notice that is in compliance with the foreign country’s laws or in a manner otherwise not prohibited by that country’s laws or international agreement. Without effective service of process, U.S. courts are usually reticent to award a default judgment, and may be forced to grant a motion to dismiss under FRCP Rule 12(b).

The most common internationally agreed means of service arises under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague Convention”). The Hague Convention provides for service through a ratifying country’s Central Authority, which is the governmental body designated to facilitate service of process. Service via the Central Authority is reliable and relatively cost effective, but can take a significant amount of time—sometimes more than six months—to accomplish, leading to increased delay and expense in enforcement actions. 

Continue reading “Service of Process in Arbitration Enforcement Actions”

Enforceability of “Knock-for-Knock” Indemnity in U.S. Offshore Wind

G. Evan Spencer and Douglas J. Shoemaker ●

Despite recent setbacks, a number of U.S. offshore wind projects remain on the books and on track. A recurring issue with these projects concerns what contractual indemnity scheme should apply. For offshore oil and gas projects in the United States and internationally, and for offshore wind projects outside the United States, the parties almost uniformly utilize some iteration of a “knock-for-knock” indemnity scheme, whereby each party picks up the full tab for any personal injuries, illnesses, or deaths of its employees and for any damage to or loss of its property, regardless of the cause or the fault of any party. Each party is also responsible for the people and property of their respective “group,” including underlying subcontractors, who should also have the same knock-for-knock indemnity obligations.

The knock-for-knock indemnity scheme is efficient and effective, particularly if it includes no carve-outs and is applied uniformly across all of the contracts for parties that have personnel and/or property involved in the project. This setup provides the parties with more certainty of their liability exposure and avoids duplicative insurance coverage. In most cases, each party with personnel or property involved in the project will also be required to have insurance coverage that names the counterparty and its “group” as an additional insured and waives the underwriters’ rights to pursue subrogation against them.

However, even in the U.S. offshore oil and gas industry, there have been some hiccups in adopting knock-for-knock indemnity. For example, Texas and Louisiana each adopted regulations to ensure equitable division of liability exposure with contractual indemnity provisions in offshore projects, limiting where knock-for-knock can be used. Also, some jurisdictions find indemnity for an indemnitee’s gross negligence or willful misconduct to be void, as against public policy, or to require specific notice to the indemnitor. 

Continue reading “Enforceability of “Knock-for-Knock” Indemnity in U.S. Offshore Wind”

V.O.S. Selections, Inc. and the Sword of Yoshida

By way of executive order, the Trump administration has imposed tariffs on its global trading partners under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), which gives the president powers to deal with national emergencies stemming from “any unusual and extraordinary threat” that comes in whole or in large part from outside the United States. The tariffs have taken two forms: targeted tariffs against China, Mexico, and Canada relating to the importation of illegal narcotics (fentanyl) into the United States (though little evidence supports any such importation from Canada); and so-called “Reciprocal Tariffs” pertaining to perceived trade imbalances, which have been implemented as of August 7, 2025, against nearly all countries with any significant trade relationship with the United States, except as otherwise negotiated through bilateral trade deals with individual nations.

In V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) combined challenges from various shipping importers and 12 states arguing that these tariffs are unconstitutional and violative of U.S. law, and that such tariffs require congressional approval. On May 28, 2025, the CIT ruled that IEEPA’s statutory authority for the president to “regulate . . . importation” does not extend to imposing unlimited tariffs under the Supreme Court’s major questions doctrine, which limits federal agencies from broadly construing their powers from vague or implied grants of authority, or the Trade Act, which limits tariffs imposed to respond to balance of payment problems to 15 percent and a maximum duration of 150 days. These tariffs also require an extensive investigation by the U.S. Trade Representative before implementation, which has not occurred. The CIT also ruled that Congress cannot delegate such unlimited power under the Constitution, which assigns Congress the exclusive powers to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” Quoting Supreme Court precedent addressing the nondelegation doctrine, the CIT noted that delegation of such authority, of course, is permitted “as long as Congress ‘lay[s] down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise that authority] is directed to conform,’” which means when Congress “meaningfully constrains” the president’s authority. 

Continue reading “V.O.S. Selections, Inc. and the Sword of Yoshida”

Spotlight on …

Get to know Blank Rome Maritime team members Douglas J. Shoemaker and G. Evan Spencer.

Continue reading “Spotlight on …”

RANKINGS

Blank Rome Attorneys Recognized in 2026 Best Lawyers in America®

Blank Rome was recognized in the 2026 Best Lawyers in America survey, which ranked 235 firm attorneys in the annual categories of “Lawyers of the Year,” “Ones to Watch,” and “Best Lawyers” in 60 practice groups across 14 regions. Partners Keith B. Letourneau and Thomas H. Belknap, Jr., were recognized in the “Lawyers of the Year” category for Admiralty and Maritime Law in Houston and New York City, respectively. Additionally, 14 Maritime attorneys were recognized as “Best Lawyers.”Read More »

Jeanne M. Grasso Recognized in Corporate Counsel’s 2025 Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards

Partner Jeanne M. Grasso was recognized in Corporate Counsel’s 2025 Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards as a winner in the Law Firm Lifetime Achievement category. This distinguished honor recognizes women who, through years of dedication, innovation, and unwavering commitment, have profoundly impacted the legal profession by excelling in their careers, breaking barriers, advocating for change, and paving the way for future generations.

Chambers USA 2025 Honors Blank Rome Maritime Attorneys and Practices

Chambers USA 2025 nationally ranked Blank Rome’s Maritime practice and attorneys in the following areas:

  • Transportation: Shipping/Maritime: Finance
  • Transportation: Shipping/Maritime: Litigation (New York) – #1 ranking
  • Transportation: Shipping/Maritime: Litigation (outside New York) – #1 ranking
  • Transportation: Shipping/Maritime: Regulatory – #1 ranking
  • Offshore Energy

The firm’s ranked Maritime attorneys include: Thomas H. Belknap, Michael Bell, William R. Bennett, Jeanne Grasso, John D. Kimball, Keith B. Letourneau, Richard Singleton, Anthony Salgado, Douglas Shoemaker, Matthew J. Thomas, and Jonathan K. Waldron. Read More »

Blank Rome Attorneys and Practices Highly Ranked in The Legal 500 United States 2025 

Blank Rome’s Maritime group and attorneys have been highly ranked and recommended in The Legal 500 United States 2025. Researchers at The Legal 500 conduct annual, in-depth market research and gather information from individual law firms as well as feedback from peers and clients to form an objective analysis and prepare comprehensive rankings and editorial of the U.S. legal market. Read More »

News & Resources

Trump Administration Resource Hub

We invite you to visit our Trump Administration Resource Hub to explore our thought leadership provided by a team of attorneys dedicated to providing comprehensive analysis and actionable insights to help navigate the complexities and opportunities presented by the administration’s executive orders, policies, and regulatory changes.

Appellate Insights: Winning on Appeal

We are excited to introduce Blank Rome Appellate Insights: Winning on Appeal, a monthly digital newsletter dedicated to appellate law. This publication highlights significant appellate court decisions, as well as trends and developments shaping litigation strategy across the country. In each issue, readers will find timely analysis, case spotlights, and commentary from our experienced Appellate Litigation team. To read the September edition of Appellate Insights: Winning on Appeal, please click here.

The BR International Trade Report

The September 2025 issue of The BR International Trade Report, Blank Rome’s monthly digital newsletter, highlights international trade, sanc­tions, cross-border investment, geopolitical risk issues, trends, and laws impacting businesses domestically and abroad. Click here to read it.

The BR Privacy & Security Download

We invite you to read our October 2025 edition of The BR Privacy & Security Download, the monthly digital newsletter of Blank Rome’s Privacy, Security & Data Protection practice, which covers current trends and updates in the areas of state, local, and federal laws and regulations, U.S. litigation and enforcement, and international laws and regulations, as well as the group’s recent events and webinars, media activity, and news. To view The BR Privacy & Security Download, please click here.