A Florida appeals court has revived a marine insurance lawsuit over destroyed yachts, finding the policies' forum-selection clause was not mandatory. 

Alexander Marine Co., a Taiwanese yacht builder, held two marine insurance policies with Fubon Insurance Company, also based in Taiwan, covering the shipment of three yachts from Kaohsiung, Taiwan, to Port Everglades, Florida. One was an open cargo policy spanning multiple shipments. The other covered the three-yacht voyage specifically. Both contained the same clause: "Subject to Taiwanese Law and Jurisdiction if the policy dispute." 

Then things went wrong - twice. A fire aboard the transport vessel destroyed two of the three yachts outright. The surviving yacht was loaded onto a replacement ship headed for Port Everglades, but the vessel diverted to Tampa, where the yacht was dropped during offloading and damaged further. 

Alexander Marine filed claims with Fubon for all three losses. The two sides disagreed on the amount payable, and Alexander Marine sued in Broward County Circuit Court on two counts of breach of contract. Fubon moved to dismiss, arguing the clause required the dispute to be heard in Taiwan. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. 

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed on September 16. 

The core question was straightforward: did the clause make Taiwan the only place the parties could litigate, or did it simply confirm Taiwan as one available option? Under Florida law, the first type is mandatory and the second permissive. Mandatory clauses use words like "shall," "must," "exclusive," or "only." Permissive clauses identify a forum without barring all others. 

The clause here said disputes were "subject to" Taiwanese jurisdiction. It never said Taiwan was the sole forum. That absence of exclusivity language was decisive. The court held the clause operated only as consent to jurisdiction in Taiwan, not as a bar to suit elsewhere. 

Two secondary questions were left open. The court declined to decide whether the dispute - which turned on the loss amount, not policy interpretation - even fell within the phrase "policy dispute." And it did not reach Fubon's alternative forum non conveniens argument, noting the trial court had made no findings on it. That issue now returns to the lower court. 

For marine underwriters and claims professionals, the case shows how forum-selection language without specific exclusivity terms can unravel when tested across borders.