In the case of International Terminal Operating Co., Inc. v. NV Nederl. Amerik Stoomv Maats, 1968, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of International Terminal Operating Co (ITO). The dispute arose when a longshoreman was injured while unloading cargo from a ship owned by NV Nederland (Nedlloyd), and sued ITO for negligence under New York law. Nedlloyd then sought indemnity from ITO based on their stevedoring contract which stated that ITO would perform all work "at its own risk and expense". However, the court held that this clause did not explicitly or implicitly agree to indemnify Nedlloyd against its own negligence as required by federal maritime law following Ryan Stevedoring Co v Pan-Atlantic Corp precedent set in 1956. Therefore, it concluded that Nedlloyd could not seek compensation from ITO for damages paid to the injured worker.

In the dissenting opinion for International Terminal Operating Co., Inc. v. NV Nederl. Amerik Stoomv Maats, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to apply maritime law rather than state law in determining liability for a longshoreman's injury on a ship docked at port. He argued that this approach was inconsistent with previous rulings and could lead to confusion and unpredictability in future cases involving similar circumstances. Furthermore, he believed that applying maritime law would unfairly favor ship owners over injured workers by limiting their ability to seek compensation under more favorable state laws.