Liverpool and London S.S. Protection & Indemnity Association Ltd. v. Queen of Leman M/V
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
296 F.3d 350 (2002)

- Written by Alex Ruskell, JD
Facts
Liverpool and London S.S. Protection & Indemnity Association Ltd. (Liverpool) (plaintiff) filed suit against Queen of Leman M/V (Queen) (defendant) to seize the Queen for unpaid insurance premiums. The Queen was sold, and Liverpool asserted a lien against the proceeds. Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Ltd. (Tokio), who had insured the Queen’s cargo, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Liverpool did not have a maritime lien because the insurance contract’ choice-of-law provisions called for English substantive law to apply and no maritime lien was available under English law. The court ruled in Tokio’s favor, and Liverpool appealed. The court noted that the insurance contract’s language provided for a “lien in any jurisdiction in accordance with local law in such jurisdiction” and “a lien on the ships of a member” for any unpaid premiums. Consequently, the contract’s references to a lien had to allow for the existence of a lien.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Benavides, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.